SB 235 
■ C64 
'Opy 1 



.ALUMET PLANTATION, PARISH ST. MARY, LOUISIANA. 



SORGHUM 



Sugar Plant for Lower Louisiana. 



RECORD AND DISCUSSION OF FIELD AND 

LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS, 

SEASONS OF i88g-go. 



By K. E). CooivtBS, Clmemist. 



IvOUISVILIvB, KY. : 

cot^rier- journal jou printing company 

iSqi. 



CALUMET PLANTATION, PARISH ST. MARY, LOUISIANA. 



SORGHUM 



Sugar Plant for Lower Louisiana. 



RECORD AND DISCUSSION OF FIEID AND 

LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS, 

SEASONS OE i88g-go. 






By R. E. CooiviBS, Chemist. 



LOUISVILLK, KY. : 

COURIER-JOURXAI. JOU PRINTING COMPANY. 
1S9I. 



^ <i^ ^ fo f ^ ^^ 



Co!:7. 



op"- 



'^ 



INTRODUCTION. 



Kvei) ill Louisiana, the first as well as tlie most successful of 
tliose States in which the manufacture of sugar from tropical, 
i^'ane has been carried on, this industry has not reached the dimen- 
sions which are to be desired, because of the serious drawback 
presented by the short season of actual grinding allowed the sugar 
planter; for no matter how much cane may be grown, he has on 
the average scarcely more than two months during which he may 
liarvest it, or else take the risk of working up a portion of the 
liane without profit. 

An important loss is sustained from this long period of idleness, 
not alone in material damage to machinery and apparatus through 
rusting, neglect, etc., but in the mere fact of non-use of the costly 
]>lant, which thus cheats a large invested capital of its due interest 
for nine months of each year. These considerations have led many 
to inquire for means of extending the productive season of the 
sugarhouse and refinery, and no satisfactory means has been sug- 
gested except that of securing a supplemental crop which might 
ripen in a shorter time than does tropical cane, and so permit the 
mill to commence operations at an earlier date. 

The sugar beet and sorghum cane have both been proposed as 
iiuxiliaries to the present cane crop ; but an investigation of this 
subject was made by Mr. W. J. Thompson in 1887, and its result 
was such that he was led to Ijelieve that the beet, although so well 
established in Europe and of such promise elsewhere in America, 
would never be adapted to the soil and climate of Southern Louis- 
iana, nor to the agricultural processes and methods of cultivation 
required upon a cane estate. On the other hand, Mr. Thompson's 
earliest investigations convinced him that sorghum offered such 
promise of success as would warrant cultural experiment with this 
plant, and he accordingly made a careful selection of varieties in 
the light of the experience which had been gained by Dr. C. A. 
Crampton and Mr. A. A. Denton at the U. S. Sorghum Experi- 
ment Station at Sterling, Kansas. Seed was procured from these 
L'-entlemen, and in 1889 was begun in earnest the search for, or 

(3) 



(level()[)ment of, a variety of sorghum suited to the climate and 
alluvial soil of lower Jjonisiaiia. This is believed to be the first 
systematic work of the sort ever undertaken with this plant l)y a 
private individual. Mr, Daniel Thompson, proprietor of the Calu- 
met plantation, having in this case remained its sole patron. 

The objects kept in view have been: Study of the cultural 
methods best adapted to the plant under the conditions presented 
by the environment, and its acclimatization to these conditions; 
an ultimate selection of those varieties which experience will have 
shown to be best adapted to the liabitat, after acclimatization and 
careful comparison of the more promising among them, and to 
determine whether any of these are promising enough to sanction 
a continuance of the experiments. For the purpose of such com- 
parison, it was necessary to plant and cultivate alike, and to other- 
wise insure essentially like conditions in the case of every variety 
entering the competition; to afterward sample all in like manner, 
and to secure considerable numbers of juice analyses made upon 
uniformly drawn average samples taken at intervals throughout 
the period of maturity; an improvement of each variety, so far as 
possible, by selection of seed for again planting, from those indi- 
viduals only which were found to possess desirable qualities in a 
maximum degree, this requiring separate analyses of the juices 
from a very large number of individual stalks; incidentally, the 
study of certain collateral and practical questions which had risen 
regarding the sorghum plant, such as its stability, variability^ 
tonnage, needs in details of manufacture and the like. 

No effort was made to secure an improved plant by other than 
these four methods : acclimatization, improved culture, selection 
from among varieties, and propagation from the best individual 
canes. Hybridization and other methods present great induce- 
ment, but neither time nor facilities for them have yet offered at 
this place. 

These experiments have now been prosecuted for two seasons, 
and so considerable a mass of material has been accumulated that 
it appears wise it should be co-ordinated, formulated and discussed, 
for guidance in further experimentation, and for S3'stematic preser- 
vation and reference. As a result of past labors, it is now proposed 
by Mr. W. J. Thompson, under whose direction all the work has 
been performed, to discard the less promising varieties and to con- 
centrate future effort upon a few which have already been recog- 



^uze(l as luiving sucli superior merit as to eucourage the hope of 
eveiituall}^ securing for the tropical cane plantations of Louisiana 
a profitable supplemental sugar crop. 

That the sorghum plant is, in general, adapted to growtli in 
Louisiana, the large fields raised year after year for stock feeding- 
bear sufficient testimony; when grown for this purpose, moreover, 
it is so carelessly planted and so poorly (when at all) cultivated, 
that the good crops usually obtained intimate what it may be pos- 
sible to accomplish with a suitable sugar-producing variety, if given 
the attention it should properly receive. 

That sorghum of the better varieties contains sufficient cane- 
sugar to make its profitable extraction worth striving for, is shown 
by the many analyses which have been made upon its juices, and 
have been published from time to time; and that such extraction 
may be secured, is believed by many who have convincingly proved 
their faith by persistent attempts to do so in Kansas and other 
States, with varying, and it must be granted, not generally with the 
hoped for success. But the list of failures in endeavors to manu- 
facture sugar commercially from sorghum has had more weight 
than is just, for it should be considered that the fault lies not 
entirely with the intrinsic defects of the cane. There have con- 
tributed to these failures not only badly constructed apparatus, 
unskilled labor, delaj^s in erection of factories and ill-chosen loca- 
tion of these with regard to water-supply and transportation, but 
also the fact that the cane delivered has in many instances been 
utterlv unfit to be worked, owing to improper culture, harvesting 
too early or too late, or allowing it to lie cut and exposed in the 
field until practically valueless before hauling to the factory. And 
it may he said, that not all these attempts have been quite without 
encouragement to tlieir promoters. 

Of the many known varieties of sorghum, some are productive 
of cane-sugar in large degree, and others in less, or not at all. 
The sugar-yielding sorts all vary widely in form, size and suitabil- 
ity to diftereut soils and climatic conditions, these qualities being 
most constant in types which have been longest cultivated. Such 
diflt'erences make it possible to select at the outset the varieties 
likely to be adapted to a given localit}-, and bj' experiment with 
a number of these to find which are best fitted for growth tliere. 
Afterward, by selection of seed from single stalks found by obser- 
vation and analysis to possess desirable traits of form and growth 



6 

and qualities of juice, planting this seed and continuing the selec- 
tion from the new plants produced, it is almost certain that in 
course of time a stable variety may be perfected, which will pre- 
sent the valuable characteristics of the original stalk, and the long 
cultivation of this new variety will tend to make it fixed and per- 
manent. 

Experiments in the directions indicated have been continued 
during 1889 and 1890, as said before, under the direction of Mr. 
W. J. Thompson ; and the following report shows, as briefly as tlie 
subject admits, their result. 

In the work of 1890 the elficient aid of Mr. W. Y. Ivemper, of 
Glencoe, La., as analyst in the laboratory, made possible a far 
wider range of experiment and a more extended system of inves- 
tigation than could be undertaken the previous year, and much 
credit is due to him. 

CULTURAL EXPERIMENTS OF 1889. 

In pursuit of these experiments, in 1889, a piece of compara- 
tively new, stiff black land, on which an earlier crop of corn had 
perished from drouth, was chosen as a convenient site. When the 
heavy and prolonged rains which followed the drouth sufficiently 
abated to permit of working the soil, it was replowed, ridged 
and opened, and the seed was drilled in by hand and covered with 
the hand-hoe to a uniform depth of one inch. All this was 
accomplished during the forenoon of June 19th, the rains setting 
in again the same afternoon. Sixteen plots were made, in rows 
each distant two hundred feet from the next parallel one, with the 
same space between adjoining ends. By June 24th, the fifth day 
from planting, all but three plots had come to a satisfactory stand, 
and all but two by the seventh day, June 20th. The seed of these 
two plots failed to germinate almost completely. The rains which 
recommenced on the afternoon of the day of planting, continuing 
sixty-three days, /'. c, until August 21st, prevented the use of fer- 
tilizers, and even allowed no cultivation except a careful hoeing 
and the turning of a few furrows to the rows, which Avas done on 
July 20th, the twenty-sixth day from seeding, the canes at this 
time averaging one foot in height. 

After August 21st, however, the weather changed and con- 
tinued drouthy until the end of the growing season, except for 
one heavy rain on September 25th, the ninet3'-eighth day. On 



November 19th, finally, the one hundred tind fifty-third day, a 
severe freeze destroyed all the canes then standing and put an end 
to the season's work. 

The sixteen i)lots were of the varieties and description given 
helow. The seed from which the Calumet sorghum was raised 
this year (1880) was obtained from Sterling, Kansas; and to estab- 
lish a standard forjudging our own work, analyses are given for 
vixch variety Avhich were made at Sterling in 1888, these being, in 
most cases, analyses of the j^arerd j^lot, but in several instances 
where this could not be assured, the best average or single stalk 
analyses of the rarictij at that station for 1888 is given instead, and 
the fact is so stated. The serial number of the Sterling plot when 
known is also specitied. 

It will be understood that all these analyses are made upon the 
juice expressed by the small experimental mill. Average analyses 
are made upon the mixed juice of an arbitrary number of canes 
selected to represent as nearly as possible the character of the 
whole plot sampled, and single stalk analyses upon the juice of 
individual canes chosen from the plot by outward signs as the best 
in form, size, maturity and the like, and further selected for the 
laboratory by the Brix spindle test of their juices. 

PLOT No. 1. EARLY ORANGE. Planted with seed from Pl.it No. S4, Sterliiig. 
Kansas. ISSS, the stock having long been resident in that .State. The 
best average analvsi.s for the parent (Sterling) plot. 1888: Solids. 17.5S; 
Suero.se. 1-2.82; Purity. 72.92: Glucose, 1.33. Be>t reeord toi' this variety 
and year at Sterling, a single stalk selected from a large field: .Sdlids. 
22.18: Sucrose, 17.05; Purity. 70.87. 

Best average analysis of derivate plot. Calumet, 1889, one hundred 
and thirty day.s from planting: Solids, 21.30; Sucro.se, 16.02; Purity. 
75.21; Glucose, l.Uo. Best single stalk analysi.s. Calumet, 1889: Solids, 
22.30; Sucrose. 17.37; Purity, 77.89, this on the one hundred and thirty- 
seventh day from seeding. 

This Calumet plot was planted on a ditchliaiik and tliiniieil. when the 
plants were about 4 inches high, to a stand of one plant to :! inches. 
Seed-heads generally in sight by the sixty-third day from planting; seed 
beginning to hai'den on the ninety-tirst day. Analyses eommenced on 
this plot October 5th, the one hundred and eighth day. Not much lodg- 
ing, due to wind, was noticed in this plot, though many eanes were lost 
through the effect of -'red disease"' and the injury from the trtipical 
borer {Chilo sncchnrnlh), both of Avhicb attacked these canes seriously. 
Sup)iliniental heads and off-shoots from the base were very common. 

PLOT No. 2. EARLY ORANGE. Planted with seed from Plot No. liS. Sterling. 
Kansas, 1888, the stock having been received there from Louisiana that 
vear. The best averagi' >amjde analyses for the parent ( Stevliiii;- 1 and 



drrivate (Ciiluiurt) plots are: Sterling Plot No. G8, 1888: Solids, 17.!>0; 
SutTose, 12.90: riirity, 72.07; Glucose, 1.13. 

Calumet Plot No. 2. 1889: Solids, 21.40; Sucrose, 16.30; Purity, 
76.16; Glucose. 2.50, this last analysis on the one hundred and twenty- 
sixth day. Best single stalk analysis of parent plot, 1888: Solids, 16.31; 
Sucrose, 14.43; Purity, 88.47. Best single stalk of derivate plot 1889: 
Solids, 23.50; Sucrose, 18.05; Puritj', 76.80; the latter made one hundred 
and eighteen days after seeding. 

The Calumet plot was planted on a ditchliank. A few seed-heads 
were in sight, and the canes were about 7 feet in height hy the sixty-third 
day. Little lodging was observed, though there was more sprouting than 
in case of Plot No. 1. Less injury was sustained from borers and disease 
(the "red disease"' mentioned, "Bacillus sorghi"' being its reputed 
cause) fliaii the jireceding plot. 

PLOT No. 3. LINK'S HYBRID. Seed prohabhj from Plot --O.'- Sterling. Kan- 
sas, 1888. Best average analysis of parent plot : Solids. ; Sucrose. 

14.09; Purity, . Of derivate plot: Solids. 20.70; Sucrose, 16.44; 

Purity, 79.42; Glucose, 1.16, one hundi-ed and eleven days after planting. 
The best single stalk analysis with this variei;^ at Sterling, 1888: Solids. 

; Sucrose, 16.51; Purity, . The best single stalk analysis of 

the derivate plot. 1889: Solids. 22.00; Sucros.-, 18.26; Purity, 83.00. on 
the one hundred and eighteenth day. 

Plot located on a ditchbank. Seed-heads were forming on the sixty- 
third day. On the one hundred and seventh day these canes had readied 
a height of about ten feet, and the seed was already hardening. 

Although at Sterling this variety was said to lodge badly, the fault 
was not apparent here. But slight ihjin'v was ^ufferi'd by it here from 
disease or from the borer, and this, together with the uniformly high juice 
analyses obtained, made it one of the favorite varieties of the season. 

PLOT No. 4. WHITE INDIA. Planted with seed from Sterling. Kansas; parent 
plot not certain, but probably No. 69, of 1888, of which plot the best 
average analysis was : Solids, 17.67; Sucrose, 13.07; Purity, 73.96; Glu- 
cose, 1.02. No average analyses could be made on the derivate (1889) 
plot. The best single stalk analysis of the variety at Sterling in 1888 
is not known. That of the derivate plot was: Solids, 22.00; Sucrose, 
17.31; Purity. 78.70; Glucose, 1.31, one hundred and twenty days from 
seeding. 

This plot was one not planted on a ditchbank. and may have had 
poor drainage in consrcjuenee. No satisfactory stand was obtained, the 
seed not germinating well; and the few plants that came were yellow in 
color and of irregular size, perhaps because too thin on the ground to 
shade the roots. Sixty-nine days after seeding, these stalks appeared 
more healthy, were of large diameter and about 7| to 8 feet tall. On the 
one hundred and twenty-tirst day the seed were becoming hard and the 
lower leaves dying. Lodging was noticed among these canes, few as 
there were. Large and heavy seed-heads were grown, of the character- 
istic whiteness. About forty-five canes were obtained from the plot, 
(juite free of disease and borers. Defective gennination was olis('r\ed in 
this variety at Sterliu"- the vear before. 



9 

PLOT No. 5. RED LIBERIAN. Planted with seed from Sterling, Kansa.'^, 188.S. 
Parent |»lot unknown. The best sucrose obtained on an average sample 
of the variety for that year and station was 14.76 per cent. The only 
average sample analysis of the derivate plot at Calumet, 1889: Solid.-, 
17.20; Sucrose, 9.87; Purity, 57.88; Glucose, 2.74, one hundred and 
eleven days after planting. The best sucrose obtained for a single stalU 
(if this variety at Sterling, 1888, was 17.(19 per cent. Best single stalk 
derivate plot. 1889: Solids. 21.70; Sucrose, 15.13; Purity. 68.77; this 
analyzed on the one hun(hvd and thirty-ninth day. The plot was not on 
a ditchbank. Seed-heads were all in sight, and just darkening on the 
ninety-first day. One supplemental head on each cane; not much injury 
from l)ui-crs. but a great deal from the "red disease" was suilered by this 
plot, and very little lodging occurred, although the canes were quite 
slender. 

PLOT No. 6. LATE ORANGE. Planted with seed from Plot No. 89, Sterling. 
Kansas. 1888. Maxinuini average analysis ftu' that plot and year: Solids. 
17.99; Sucrose, 12.7o; Purity, 70.76; Glucose. 2.32. Maximum average 
analysis of derivate plot. 1889: Solids, 20.70; Sucrose, 16.44; Purity, 
79.42; Gluco.se, 2.39, on the one hundred and twenty-sixth day. The 
best single stalk secured fnvm the parent plot (No. 89) was a variation 
from the type, analyzing: Solids, 18.78; Sucrose, 13.64; Purity. 72.6:'.; 
Glucose, 2.94. Best single stalk analysis of derivate plot, 1889: Solids, 
22.80; Sucrose, 18.11; Purity, 79.42; Gluense. 1.17, on the one hundred 
and thirty-first day. 

This was another of the plots not on ditchbanks. and thought to have 
suffered for lack of drainage. Seed-heads began to show about sixty- 
seven days after planting, coming earliest on the canes at one end of the 
plot, which were taller there than elsewhere. Some lodging was caused 
by wind, but comparatively little injury was suffered from borers or 
disease. 

PLOT No. 7. HONDURAS. Planted with seed from Plot No. 64, Sterling, Kan- 
sas. 1S,S8. Best average analy.sis of parent })!ot. 1888: Solid.s. 15.-54; 
Sucrose, 9.-54; Purity, 61.39; Glucose, 3.24. Of derivate plot, 1889: 
Solid.s, 1.3.50; Sucrose, 7.45; Purity, -55.18; Glucose. 3.9-5, this being the 
only average sample cut from the Calumet plot, and taken on the one 
hundred and eleventh day. Best single stalk analysis of parent plot is 
not known. A cane from a "variation'' jilot of Hondura.s, at Sterling, 
1888, gave: Solids, 20.00; Sucrose, 14.90; Purity. 74.50; Glucose, 1.02. 
Best single .stalk of derivate plot, 1889: Solids, 16.40; Sucrose. 10.68; 
Purity, 65.12, on the one hundred and thirty-second day. 

Planted on a ditchbank. On the sixty-third day from seeding, this 
plot was irregular and of sickly color, though large in stalk, and no signs 
of heading were apparent; many roots had sprung from the joints near 
the ground. On the ninety-first day this ])lot had become one of the best 
in size of cane.«, which were quite thick on the row, and averaged 11 to 
12 feet tall, with .seed-heads just darkening. This plot was perhaps the 
latest maturing of all, and was cut down by the frost of November 19th. 
the one hundred and fifty-third day from its planting, and before matu- 
. rity was reached. Borers damaged these canes a little, and they were 

much diseased. 



10 

PLOT No. 8. IMPROVED ORANGE. Planted with seed from Sterling, Kaus..-. 
1888. The parent plot is unknown, and no analyses of the variety at 
Sterling for that year are available; the statement was furnished witli 
the seed, however, that the variety attains "15.00 per eent. sucrose. "" 

Best average analysis of derivate plot, 1889: Solids, r.t.20; Sucmse. 
14.81; Purity, 77.14; Glucose, 2.16, on the one hundred mid thirteenth 
day. Best single stalk analysis of derivate plot, 188!i : Solids, 21.liO: 
Sucrose, 17.10; Purity. 70.12; Glucose, 1.9!i, on the one hundivd and 
thirteenth day. 

Planted on a ditehl)ani<. On the sixty-ninth day nearly all these 
canes showed seed-heads, were about 8 feet in height and fairly uniform 
in size, though of pale foliage. Seed were turning hard by tiie iiinctv- 
tirst day. 

This plot was not very successful in the tirld ; the rani'< were (juitc 
slender and badly injured by the borer, only one other plot having stif- 
fered more from this cause'. Lodging was not noticeable, but the cane> 
bore many sujjplemental heads, often two to the stalk. 

PLOT No. 9. GOOSENECK. Planted with seed believed tn be fn.m Pint Xn. 7ti, 
Stei'ling, Kansas, 1888. Best average analysis of that ]il.it (after frosts 
and before maturity): Solids, 18.00; Sucrose, 11.78; Purity, 6.5.44; (ilu- 
cose, 2.60. The only average analysis of the derivate i)lot, 1889: Solids, 
17.00; Sucrose, 11.74; Purity, 69.06; Glucose, 3.]]. on the one hundred 
and eleventh day. No single stalk analysis of this variety at Sterling 
can be had. The best single stalk of the derivate plot, 1889, was: S(dids. 
19.90; Sucrose, 15..58; Purity, 78.29; (41ueose, 1.71; tliis analyzed on 
the one hundred and thirty-second day from seeding. 

Planted on a ditchbank. By the sixty-ninth day the canes of this 
plot were about 8 feet tall, of good color and of quite large diameter, but 
not thick on the row. One of the worst -'suckered'^ plots at that date, 
its seed-heads just coming into view. There was no regularity in the 
ripening of thp seed, and from the violent variations of form among 
them it seemed certain that these canes were derived from crossed seed. 
Many stalks resembling Orange and Amber ty]ies were noti<-e(l. 

The characteristic .pendent seed-head of this variety seems an objec- 
tion, as a possible source of inconvenience in handling in the tield and at 
the cane-carrier. 

PLOT No. 10. (STERLING PLOT No. 51, OF 1888.) Plant,,! with seed from 
Plot No. 51, Sterling, 188S, at which station the Nariety held a good rec- 
ord for purity of juice, the best average sample being, for 1888: Solids, 
17.77; Sucrose, 12.80; Purity, 72.03 ; Glucose, 2.27. The only average 
analysis for the derivate plot, 1889: Solid-s 14.20; Sucrose, 8.17; Purity, 
57.53; Glucose, 2.96, one hundred and eleven days from })lanting. The 
best single stalk analysis at Sterling for 1888 can not be given ; that for 
the derivate (Calumet) plot, 1889, was: Solids, 20.70; Sucrose, 15.67; 
Purity, 75.70, on the one hundred and thirty-seventh day. 

Planted on a ditchbank, but still seemed to lack proper drainage. 
Seed-heads were irregular in time of appearing, and the cani's not uni- 
form in development. On the sixty-ninth day the majority of these canes 
were but 5 feet in height, of sickly color (this especially marked ^it one 



11 

end of tlu' row), ami without seed-heads, while a lew stalks were nearly 
11 feet tall and with heads well out. More uniformity in iieight and 
general appearanee was gained by the ninety-first day. hut the plot was 
the yellowest of any, though handsome otherwise. No evidences of 
ero.ssing or impurity of stock were detected. The plot continued slow in 
growth, and fell hehind toward the last, having only fairly thick canes 
of but average (8 feet) height. Not much lodging was observed, but a 
great deal of suc-kering from about the roots. 

PLOT No. 11. (STERLING PLOT No. 36, OF 1888.) Ph.nte.l with seed 
from Sterling Plot No. 36, of 1888. Best average analysis obtained with 
canes of the parent plot, 1888: Solids, 15.32; Sucrose, lO.'J'.l ; Purity, 
67.17; Glucose, 0.63. The only average analysis of derivate jilot, ISS'.i : 
Solids, 13.30; Sucrose, 7.85; Purity, 5U.02 ; Glucose, '2.W. on the ,nie 
hundred and eie\'entli day. 

Best single stalk.analysis of parent plot unknown. That of the deri- 
vate plot, 188'J: Solids, 18.60; Sucrose, 12.73; Pvu-ity. 6H.S7; Glucose. 
1.97, made on the one hundred and thirty-third day. 

Not planted on a ditcbbank. The plants were injured while very 
small by "bud worms." Seed-heads appeared, irregularly, about >eveuty- 
eight days after planting. On the one hundred and nineteenth day thi- 
plot was apparently unhealthy and showed evidences of mixed breetling. 
Slim canes, not nearly as mature as most other plots at the sanu' date, 
and very little lodged by winds. Borers were very muiierou> in these 
canes, and some stalks wei'c badly diseased and red<bMied. This variety 
was said to produce the largest canes grown at Sterling in 1S8S, hut this 
plot did Hot succeed here. Maturity was never reaelieil. 

PLOT No. 11 P. (STERLING PLOT No. 36, OP 1888.) An ex^i. t duiilieat. , as 
to seed, of the preceding plot, planted at the lower end of the >anie mw, 
not so close to the ditchbank. Much more advanced than its duplicate, 
having seed-heads out by the sixty-ninth day. at this date being some 9i 
feet tall and very handsome. On the one hundred and twenty-ninth 
day, the canes, though still quite erect, were >i)routing from every joint 
and rooting badly from several of the l'>wer nodes. These were th<' 
largest canes grown at Calumet in 1889, hut never matured. Tlie be>t 
single stalk of Plot 1 1 P was analy/.ed on the one hundred and ninth day, 
giving: Solids, 13.20; Sucro>e, (;.08 ; Purity. 46. OC; (ilucose, 2.52. 
After this day's analysis no further work was doni' with Ihe jilot, others 
then at maturity claiming all the time which could he i;-i\en to them. 

PLOT No. 12. (STERLING PLOT No. 15, OP 1888, SORGHUM BICOLOR.) 

Planted with seed froui Plot No. 15, Sterling, 1888. Best averagv analy- 
sis of parent plot, 1888: Solids, 18.64 ; Sucrose, 12.S7; Purity. 69.05; 
Glucose, 0.65. [The derivate Plot No. 12 was wholly of small, slender 
canes, badly lodged, sprouted and infested with borers. Having so 
many varieties of vastly better promise, no seed selection was attempted 
from this, no analyses were made, and the variety was omitted from the 
list for 1890 planting.] 

PLOT No. 13. (STERLING PLOT No. 14, OF 1888.) Planted with seed 
from Plot No. 14, St<M-ling, 1888. Be.-t average analysis of jiarent plot. 



12 

1888: Sulicis 18.60; Sucrose, 13.84; rurity, 74.41; Gliu-oFe, 0.55, one 
Iniiidred and .sixty-thrw days after planting. The only average analy.sis 
of derivate plot, 1889: Solid.s, 17.20; Suerose, 10.11; Purity, 58.37; 
Glucose, 3.12, one hundred and eleveiitli day. 

The best single stallv of the parent plot is not known. Best .single 
stalk of the derivate plot, 1889: Solids, 19.60; Sucrose, 14.(59; Purity, 
75.00, on the one hundred and twenty-tifth day. 

Plot located on a ditclil)ank. Seed-heads had appeared hy the sixty- 
third day, when the canes were at an average height of 8 feet, very hand- 
some in color, but too much inclined t<i sprouting. Seed were hardening 
by the ninety-fir.st day. This plot suttered from the attacks of the cane- 
borer, and lodged notably. 

PLOT No. 13 P. (STERLING PLOT No. 14, OF 1888.) An exact duplicate of 
Plot No. lo, preceding. No average samjdes were drawn from this plot, 
and but two single stalks were analyzed, the better of these, cut on its one 
hundred and eighth day, giving : Solids, 17.70 ; Sucrose, 12.48 ; Purity. 
70.51. This jilot was so like its duplicate in all respects that no special 
descrijitiun is needed. 

PLOT No. 14. WHITE INDIA. Planted with seed from Plot No. 70, Sterling, 
Kansas, 1888. Best average analysis of parent plot, 1888: Solid.s, 19.05; 
Sucrose, 13.26; Purity, 69.61; Glucose, 1.61. There were no avei-age 
samjiles drawn from the derivate ]ilot. Best single stalk of the parent 
plot can not be given; that of the derivate plot, 1889: Solids, 19.00; 
Sucrose, 13.85; Purity, 72.90, on the one hundred and twenty-second 
day from planting. Planted on a ditchbank. Germination tardy, irreg- 
ular and weak, few plants being obtained. In growth and character- 
istics like Calumet Plot No. 4 in all respects. 

By comparing tlie average sample aualj'ses of the foregoing 
Calumet (or ''derivate'") plots with those of the corresponding 
Sterling (or " })arent ") plots, Ave find that many varieties have 
fallen olf from their Kansas record for 1888. Those varieties, the 
average analysis of which here did not equal that of the parent 
plot or variety at Sterling the year before, were, Red Liberian, 
Calumet Plots Xos. 10, 11, 11 P, 13 and 13 P. Honduras failed 
also to do as well here as at Sterling, since it never reached 
maturity, and as other causes combined to place it at a disadvan- 
tage ; and in greater or less degree, this is also true of other varieties. 
Both derivate plots of Early Orange, the plot of Link's Hybrid, 
and that of Late Orange, were superior, in analysis at least, to their 
parent plots. Gooseneck was nearly the same in sucrose content 
here in 1889 as at Sterling the former season. Plots Nos. 4, 8 and 
12 can not be compared with their parent plots, for want of suffi- 
cient data. On the whole, it is considered that the result of the 
work of 188ii was satisfactoiy, if only as furnishing evidence that 



13 

sorghum would grow aud produce a reasonable percentage of cane 
sugar in this climate and upon these lands. 

Briefly stated, the weather during which tlie sorghum was 
grown was very wet at the time of and for tlie few weeks succeed- 
ing germination, and exceedingly dry for the latter half of the 
growing period, and while seed was forming — presumably favor- 
able conditions — and but for the large extent of damage by borers, 
faulty drainage and disease, a far better showing would doubtless 
have been made. 

As a result of this work, it was decided to continue culture 
experiments in 1890 with all the varieties tried in 1889, with the 
exception of Honduras, which was considered of too slow growtli 
to suit the j.urpose, and Sterling Plot I^o. 15, 1888 (Calumet Plot 
ISTo. 12), which was too small a variety. 



CULTURAL EXPERIMENTS OF 1890. " 

During the season of 1890 these experiments have been con- 
tinued in substantial!}' the same manner as in 1889, Honduras aud 
Sterling Plot No. 15 having been discontinued, however, and the 
addition made of several varieties new to Calumet, thus increasino: 
the number of varieties from twelve to sixteen. An important 
innovation was made, in planting duplicates of certain varieties at 
separate dates with the intention of prolonging the seed-selection 
work while gaining as well an opportunity to watch the influence 
of varying weather, which it was thought might afford very differ- 
ent growth conditions to each planting. It was further hoped that 
by thus planting portions of seed at proper intervals, it might be 
demonstrated that crops could be grown by this method which 
would afford mature canes for a much longer period of manufact- 
ure than could be possible by any other means. The first and 
chief planting was to have been made in the same locality occu- 
pied by the plots of 1889, but this being exposed to inundation 
from the Mississippi river, wliich threatened at the time, it was 
abandoned for another and higher part of the plantation. Here, 
on March 24th, the Messrs. Thompson personally superinteiuled the 
seeding of nineteen plots, which Avere covered to a depth of one 
inch by hand-hoe. At this date the land not reserved for the 
experiments was in corn, which had just appeared above ground, 
and amidst this the sorghum was planted in single rows. Ditch- 



14 

hanks were used for the latter, three rows ulong each, separated 
at the ends by about fiftj- feet and from parallel rows by two hun- 
dred feet, as in the former season. Droutliy weather prevailed at 
this time, the soil being in good tilth, but unduly dry for rapid 
germination. On March 29th, however, the fifth day following, 
all the plots had come to a "stand," with few exceptions. By 
April 1st, tlie eighth day, the stand was entirely satisfactory ex- 
cept in two plots, which for some unknown cause proved com- 
plete failures. April 12th, the nineteenth day from planting, when 
suffering from drouth, the soil was hoed lightly and the canes 
thinned, leaving one plant to ever}^ three inches. Until the 21st 
of April, twenty-eighth day from planting, no rain fell, when 
three days of showery weather were very beneficial. May 13th, 
/, e., on its fiftieth day, the first planting was plowed and laid by, 
all suckers and weak plants being destroyed at the same time. 
Xo fertilizers were used on this series; the minimum degree of 
attention ])estowed on this, as on subsequent plantings, was due to 
conflict with threatened overflow on the levees. 

The first planting consisted of the following varieties, those 
which were tried on Calumet in 1889 retaining the plot numbers 
given them that 3'ear : 

PLOT No. 1. EARLY ORANGE. 

Pliintod with seed fVoin live "star" heads selected from Calumet Plot 
No. 1, 1889. Average of the anaU'ses of these parent canes: Solids. 
"20.60; Sucrose, 16.36; Purity, 79.41. Best average analysis of parent 
plot, 1889; Solids, 21.30; Sucrose, 16.02; Purity, 75.21; Glucose, 1.95; 
Non-sugar, 3.83; this on the one hundred and thirtieth day. Best aver- 
age analysis of derivate plot, 1890: Solids, 19.98; Sucrose, 15.55; Purity, 
77.82; Glucose, 1.11; Non-sugar, 3.32, on the one hundred and twen- 
tieth day. Best single stalk, parent plot, 1889: Solids, 22.30; Sucrose, 
17.37; Purity, 77.89, on the one hundred and thirty-seventh day. Best 
single stalk, derivate plot, 1890: Solids, 20.31; Sucrose, 15.90; Purity, 
78.29, on the one hundred and tAventy-second day. 

Seed-heads appeared about seventy-six days after seeding, the canes 
being 6^ feet tall, and seed were hardening bj'^ the one hundred and twen- 
tieth day, when the canes were about 9 feet high. Wet weather seriously 
damaged the seed of these canes, causing it to sprout and grow. Tillers 
and supplemental arrows were very numerous, especially toward the end 
of growth, and lodging was a noticeable fault. A few of these canes 
were diseased, and all were slenderer than those raised in the parent plot 
of 1889. 
PLOT No. 2. EARLY ORANGE. 

Planted with seed of nine star-heads from Calumet Plot No. 2, of 
1889. Average of analvses of these: Solids, 20.70; Sucrose, 16.24; 



15 

Purity, 78.45. Best avoragi.- anulvfiis of piuviit plot, 1889: Solids, 21.40; 
SiUTo.sf, Uj.80; Purity, 76. Itj; Glucose, 2.50; Non-sugar, 2.60, on the 
one hundred and twenty-sixth day. That of derivate plot, 1890: Solids, 
19.07; Sucrose, 14.65; Purity, 76.82; Glucose, 1.80; Non-sugar, 2.62. 
one hundred and seventeen days after planting. Best single stalk of 
parent ])lot. 1889: Solids, 2:5.50; Sucrose, 18.05; Purity, 76.80, on the 
one hundred and seventeenth day. Best single stalk from derivate plot, 
1890: Solids, 20.85; Sucrose, 16.05; Purity, 78.87, on the one hundred 
and twenty-ninth day. 

Nearly all seed-heads were out by the eighty-first day, when the canes 

averaged about 7 J feet in height. On the one hundred and twentieth 

* day the seed were becoming brittle, with the canes at an average height 

of 8 feet. Sprt)uting of seed, tillering, etc., were very much the same as 

ill the pivi'eliiig Plot No. 1. 

PLOT No. 3. LINK'S HYBRID. Planted with seed from eleven seed-heads 
-eKctcil friMii Calumet Ph)t No. 3, of 1889. Mean analysis of the.se 
eleven cases: Solids, 21.30 ; Sucrose, 17.82 ; Purity, 81.31. Best aver- 
age analysis of parent plot, 1889: Solids, 20.70; Sucrose, 16.44; Purity, 
79.42; Glucose, 1.16; Non-sugar, 3.10, on the one hundred and eleventh 
day of growth. Best average analysis of derivate plot, 1890: Solids, 
20.42; Sucrose, 15.80; Purity, 77.45 : Glucose, 0.56 ; Non-sugai-, 3.34. 
on the one hundred and nineteenth day. Best single stalk of parent plot. 
1889: Solids. 22.00; Sucrose, 18.26; Purity, 83.00, on the one hundred 
and eighteenth day from .seeding. Of derivate plot, 1890: Solids, 21.39; 
Sucrose, 16.70; Purity, 78.07, on the one hundred and twenty-first day. 
Seed-heads came into view about the seventy-eighth day, the canes 
then irregular in height, but averaging about 7 feet. Seed were becom- 
ing brittle about one hundred and twenty days after planting, but in this, 
as in most other plots, seed were found on parts of the same as well as on 
difterent heads, ranging from green and soft to quite hard and matui-e. 
At this date the average height of the canes was about 10 feet. One end 
of th(! plot, from the outset, was of much greener, larger and quicker 
' maturing canes than the other; this was attributed to variation in the 
character of the soil, for in a row of corn growing next the sorghum, the 
.same peculiarity was remarked. Like variations are not infrequent in 
such plots, and often might lead to unwarranted suspicion of the seed 
used. Much sprouting, tillering, etc., existed among these canes, but 
their seed resisted the damp weather without germinating, owing perhaps 
to the loose panicle of this variety, which does not retain moisture as a 
more compact type will. This is considered one of the most promising 
varieties here. 

PLOT No. 4. WHITE INDIA, rianted with seed from the best seven canes of 
Calumet Plot No. 4. of 1889. Mean analysis of these: Solids, 20.77; 
Sucrose, 15.94; Purity. 76.75. No single stalks of the derivate plot were 
analyzed, but the mean of all the average samples was: Solids, 18.33; 
Sucro.se, 13.28; Purity, 72.45. The parent (1889) plot was grown from 
seed which did nat germinate well, and hence the derivate plot was sown 
thickly. A ]>erfect stand resulted, but from the canes produced v<i1 <>vc 
xcril wA\i secured because of a "blight" or fungus disease whicli ruined 



16 

these (Mitirrly at an early >ta,i;'e. ^Nlany lieads a]i]H.'are<l t<> lie wholly 
ehatf. 'I'lie \ai'iely lia- hrcii aliamloiu'd, for the |>feseiit at least, and 
IK'eds III! I'urtlie!' liielltinii. 

PLOT No. 5. RED L.IBERIAN. Thinted with >eed fn.m two selected head> cf 
Caliiiiiet Plot Nil. 5. (if 18811. Tl:e defivati' phit exliiljited s„ o-vcat 
departure from tiie type of this \ariety. and its eaiies \aried so endlessly 
amoiii;' thom.scdves, that hut one analysis was made u]>on them, since the 
followini;' ])lnt was of eane> hetter suited to our Work. 

PLOT No. 5A. RED LIBERIAN. Tlantrd with >e,-d from a ^in-le head, 
selected from Sterlino;, Kansas, Plot Xo. 181, of is'H'.t. This head was 
received from Dr. C A. ('ramiiton. The juice of the parenf cane 
analyzed: Solids, 2-J..jt): .Sucrose, if,. 8:1 ; I'urity, 74,(jO; (ilucox-, 1 ,:U ; 
Non-sugar, 4.89. Hest average and single .-talk analyse.- of the jiarent 
plot are not at hand. Best a\-erai;'t' analysis of derix'ate plot, IS'.iO: 
Sidids, 18.72; >Sucr...se, 12.80; Parity, 68.38; Gluco-se, 3.28; Non-sugar, 
2.69, on the one hundred and thirty-niiitli day of grciwth. Best single 
stalk from derivate plot. IStlO: Sidi.l.-, 10. S2; Sucrose. 15.00: Purity, 
75.68, on the one hundred and thirty-seventh day. The stalk ^-iving thi.- 
analysis, iiowever, was not at all like the IJeil Liherian type, and its seed 
were not retained. 

Seed-heads appeared on these canes eighty-one days after ]>hinting, 
W'hen the average heiglit was about 7.] feet, and brittle seed were tirst 
noted on the one hundred and twentieth day. 3rore irregularity existed 
in the plot than was anticipated in the oftspring of a single head, and 
several variations were so much larger and finer in appearance than the 
rest that their seed were preserved, contrary to the rule of saving from a 
variety only seed of the best typical canes, it lieing re(piisite to maintain 
siabUiiij as well as other qualities of a stock. AVet weather and its con- 
sequence.*, sprouting, etc., early ended the work upon this plot, the seed 
molding and spoiling so that selection became impracticable. 

PLOT No. 6. LATE ORANGE. Planted witli seed from five star-heads grown in 
Calumet Plot No. 6, of 1889. Their mean analysis: Solids, 21.72; 
Sucrose, 17.06; Purify, 78.55. Best average analysis of ]iarent plot. 
1889: S.did.s 20.70; Sucro.se, 16.44; Purity, 79.42 (Glueo.se not deter- 
mined), on the onehundi-ed and twenty-sixth day. Best average analysis 
of the derivate plot, 1890: Solids, 20.68; Sucrose, 16.80; Purity, 78.82: 
Glucose, 1.41 ; Non-sugar, 2.97, on the one hundred and twentieth day. 
Best .single stalk of parent plot, 1889: Solids, 22.80; Sucrose, 18.11; 
Purity, 79.43; Gluco.«e, 1.17; Non-sugar, 8.52, on the one hundred ami 
thirty-first day. Best single stalk of derivate plot. 1890: Solids, 20.92; 
Sucrose, 16.60; Purity, 79.85; Glucose, 2.19; Non->ugar, 2.13, on the 
one hundred and twenty-first day. 

Seed-heads were for the most }iart out by the eighty-tirst day. the 
canes then averaging 7J feet in height. Seed were nearly all hard and 
brittle by the one hundred and twentictii day, and already beginning to 
germinate from the damp, hot weather; this .sjtrouting was so general 
that very little of the seed selected from Plot No. 6 was considered 
reliable. Lodging was a pronounced fault with the plot. 



7. HONDURAS VARIATION. Plant. ■.! witli >L'ed tVuin iw.. licads 
i;ru\vn in Plot No. 117, Sterling, Kan.sa.-^, 188!t, that plot havin<;- been 
(ierivcd fnini a single head. Mean analysi.s of the parent canes: Solids, 
•J2.00; Sucrose, 16.08; Pnrity, 77.18. Best average and single stalk 
ansilyses of }iai'ent plot are nut yet received. Best average analysis of 
derivate plot, 189U: Solids, -^0.11; Sucrose, 15.55; Purity, 77.82; Glu- 
cose, l.l2'J; Non-sugar, 3.34, on the one hundred and twenty-sixth day. 
Best single stalk of derivate |.lot, 1890: Solids, 19.92; Sucrose, 15.35; 
Purity, 77. 0-"). one hundred and thirty-one days from planting. 

Owing lo failure in ubtaining satisfactory seed from Calumet Plot 
No. 7, 1889 ( Honduras), and a wish to continue experiment with a variety 
so exeellent in point of size and form, this variation (said to he earlier 
than the type) was substituted, the seed being obtained fmm the United 
States Department of Agriculture, through the kindness of Dr. C. A. 
Crarapton. 

Nearh' all seed-heads wert' in sight by the eighty-tirst day, the canes 
then averaging about 8 feet in height, but much .slenderer than ordinary 
Honduras. Hard seed were noted on the one hundred and twentieth day. 
In height, diameter and form, these canes were quite irregular, although 
they were derived from two seed-heads, both selected at Sterling on the 
same date, and thus presumablj' equally matui-e. Less lodged by wind 
than most plots of the tirst planting, but equally with them sprouted and 
tillered. A variety hardly of sufficient merit to warrant its culture an-- 
other season, as it has been decided to limit future experiment to a mini- 
mum number of these. 

8. IMPROVED ORANGE. Phmted with seed from live star-heads 
selected from Calumet Plot No. 8, of 1889. Mean analysis of these: 
Solids, 21. 2G; Sucrose, 16.45; Purity, 77.38. Best average analysis of 
parent plot, 1889: Solids, 19.20; Sucrose, 14.81; Purity, 77.14; Gluco.se, 
2.16; Non-sugar, 2.23, on the one hundred and thirteenth day. Best 
average analysis of derivate plot, 1890 : Solids, 21.22; Sucro.«e, 16.45; 
Purity, 77.52 ; Glucose, 1.48; Non-sugar, 8.29, on the one hundred and 
thirty-ninth day. Best single .stalk of parent plot, 1889: Solids, 21.60; 
Sucrose, 17.10; Purity, 79.12, on-the one hundred and thirteenth day. 
Best single stalk of "derivate plot, 1890: Solids, 24.04; Sucrose, 18.25; 
Purity, 75.91, on the one hundred and twenty-seventh day. 

Seed-heads made their appearance by the eighty-first day, the canes at 
the time being very slender and but 6o feet high. By the one hundred 
and twentieth day the seed were becoming brittle, and tlie average height 
of the canes had reached 8 feet, still quite slender, and with many sup- 
plemental heads coming out. Few seed-heads were saved from this plot, 
these which were kept being of doubtful vitality, as this varietj' was 
one of the worst in respect to the sprouting of its seed from the wet 
weather. Kather badly bent and lodged toward the last. 

PLOT No. 9. GOOSENECK. Planted w ith the seed of a single cane selected from 
Calumet Plot No. 9, of 1889. Owing to the miserable condition of the 
wind-tangled and slender canes produced in the derivate plot, and their 
evidently hybridized nature, no analytical work Avas undertaken with 
them. The down-turned head of the variet\' is considered, mfireox'er, a 



18 

faulty form, and tliis drawback is not appaiviitly i'oiii|n'iisatod for l.y any 
s])ecia] merit in other directions, for whicli reasons nolliiiii;- further will 
1)e attempted with it. 

PLOT No. 10. (STERLING, KAN., PLOT No. 51, OF 1888.) Planted with 
seed from the best two canes selcete(l from Calumet Plot No. 10, of 1889. 
Mean analysis of the two: Solids, liO.oU; Sucrose, l'>.'2!»; Purity, 74. 5'.l. 
The only average analysis of the parent plot, 188'.>: Solids, 14.20; 
Sucrose, 8.17; Purity, 57.53, on the one hundred arul eleventh day from 
))lanting. Best average analysis of derivate plot, 1890: Solids, 19.42; 
Sucrose, 14.50; Purity, 74.66; Glucose, 1.2.3; Non-sugar, 3.69, on the 
one hundred and fcn-ty-ninth diiy. Best single stalk analysis of parent 
plot, 1889: Solid.s, 20.70; Sucrose, 15.67; Purity, 75.70, on the one 
hnndi'cd and thirty-seventh day. Best single stalk of derivate plot, 
1890: Solids, 20.38; Sucrose, 15.50; Purity, 71',. OC. on the one hundi-ed 
and thirty-third day. 

Most of these canes headetl out hy the si'venty-sixtli day, heing very 
irregular in height, ranging from 4 to 8 feet, one end of the row haxing 
the tallest canes, but all quite slender. Brittle seed were notml on the 
one hundred and twentieth day, hut the heads wei-e below the average 
in productiveness. Pew well-developed canes were raised, and many 
supplenu'iital heads were formed. Not a Siitisfactoi'v plot. 

PLOT No. 11. (STERLING, KAN., PLOT No. 36, OF 1888.) Planted with 
seed from th.- hest two canes selectetl from Calumet Plot No. 11, 1889. 
Mean analysis of the two parent canes, 1889: Solids, 16.60; Sucrose. 
12.01; Purity, 71.14. Hut one average sample was taken from the 
parent plot, 1889: Solids, 13.30; Sucrose, 7..S5; Purity, 59.02 ; Glucose, 
2.96; Non-sugar, 2.49, on the one hundred and eleventh day. Best 
average amilysis of canes from derivate plot, 1890: Solids, 18.27; 
Sucrose, 11.60; Purity, 63.45; Glucose, 1.99; Non-sugar, 4.68, on the 
one hundred and fortieth day. Best single stalk analysis of parent plot, 
1889: Solids. 18.60; Sucrose, 12.73; Purity, 68.87, on the one hundred 
and thirty-third day. Best single stalk analysis of derivate plot, 1890: 
Solids, 18.72; Siu'rose, 13.90; l*urity. 74.25, on the one hundred and 
thirty-seventh day. 

Heads were \cry generally in \ iew by the ninety-sixth day, hut in 
size and de\'elo))nient the canes w<M'e quite iri-egular. Bi'ittle seed about 
the one hundred and twentieth day ; some very ioi-ward canes had. at 
this date, attained the height of eleven feet. Seed are borne in ^cry 
loose panicles. Many of the large stocks, when milled, were fouml to 
be corky and dry within and furnished but little juice, and this of low 
polarization. The ])lot was retrograding before full maturity had been 
reached, to judge from analyses made at various periods of growth. A 
variety not much lodged or bent by wind, but pi'one to sending out otl- 
shoots from the joints. 

PLOT No. 12. UNDENDEBULE. Planted with seed from the five best heads 
among a number received from the United .States Dei)arlnH'nt of Agri- 
culture. These were grown in Plot No. 254, Sterling, Kansas. 1889. 
Mean analysis of the five iiareiit >talks, 18,s9: Solids, 24.44; Sucr.>si., 



19 

r.t.07; Purity, 78.44. Best average and single stalk analyses ,.t' imicnt 
plot, 1889, are not at hand. B^est average analysis of derivatc plot. 
1890: Solids, 20.91; Sucrose, 1G.25; Purity, 77.71; Glucose, 0.72 ; Non- 
sugar, 3.94, on tlie one hundred and twenty-sixth day. Best single stalk 
analysis, derivate plot, 1890: Solids, 23.02; Sucrose, 18.10; Purity, 
78.63; Glucose, 0.47; Non-sugsir, 4.46, on the one hundred and thirty- 
eighth day from planting. 

A variety previously untried on Calumet, and recommended as 
'• Ilemarkable for its low glucose and high purity;" said, also, tobe verv 
tV('(> from offshoots. 

Heads made their first appearance about the eighty-third day at om- 
end of the row where canes averaged six to seven feet tall, .the other end 
liaving shorter and more backM'ard plants. The canes of this plot woe 
far the slenderest grown this season, though locality and ]io..r cultiN ution 
nuiy be res)ionsible for this, as the row was so close to tln' cdgr of tin- 
ditchbank that no effective working could be given to the snil mi that 
side. No sprouting except the usual supplemental heads, oiil' to each 
stalk. Seed were all hard an<l brittle by the one hundred and thirtieth 
day, apparently not greatly damaged by the rains, though in nianv cases 
the germ was swollen and darkened. 

This was the most unsatisfactory of all tlie 1890 plots, from the agri- 
cultural standpoint, though the juices from its canes were of excellent 
(|nality. 

PLOT No. 13. (STERLING, KAN., PLOT No. 14, OF 1888.) Planted 
with >eed of tlie best two canes selected from Calumet Plot No. 13, of 
1889. Mean analysis of these two canes : Solids, 20.0."> ; Sucrose, 14.0:'.; 
Purity. 72.97. But one average analysis of parent plot, 1889: Solids, 
17.20; Sucrose, 10.11; Puritj-, 58.37; Glucose, :;.]2; Non-sugar, 3.97, 
on the one hundred and eleventh day. Best iiverage analysis of deri- 
vatc plot. 1890: Solids, 17.84; Sucrose. 13.0'); Purity. 73.15; Glucose, 
1.54; Non-sugar, 3.25, on the one hundred and forty-first day. Best 
single stalk of parent plot, 1^i90: Solid,-, 19.60; Sucrose, 14.69; Purity, 
75.08, one hundred and twenty-five days after seeding. Best single stalk 
of derivate plot, 1890: Solids, 20.19; Sucrose, 15.35; Purity. 76.02, 
on the one hundred and thirty-sixth day. 

Heads wei-e ju.st appearing on the seventy-sixth day, while the canes 
were very uneven in height, and hard seed were found on the one hun- 
dred and twentieth day, at which time more uniformity in size had been 
reached. Seed-heads were of the open type, with few sprays. A large 
proportion of the seed was spoiled by the wet, sunless weather, and two 
or more supplemental heads were developed on each stalk. Lodgini;- was 
considerable. 

PLOT No. 14. EARLY ORANGE (STANDARD PLOT;. Planted with a ))or- 
tion of the se(^d originally received from Sterling, Kans., it having been 
grown there in 1888; it is identical with the seed u.«ed for Calumet Plot 
No. 2, of 1889, and was reserved for planting in 1890. This standard 
])lot, as Avell as No. 15. Link's Hybrid, was designed to afford means of 
deciding whether progress was made by one season's selection work. It 
was thought ihi.- might be leui'iied on comparing the ^tandal•d ]»lot with 



20 

tlic pidt nf tlir fnniMM' VL-AV IVniii tliL' saiiir scei!, aiiil by tlu' iiupruvciiK-nt 
()i- the i-i'\ers(' imtrd in tln' Inriiicr, (ilitaiuing an approxiinatc factur to lie 
added to or ^><ubtra(•ted from each derivate plot when comparing it with 
its par^^nt of 1889; in this manner partially avoiding the error incident 
upon comparing sorghum grown in seasons of difterent character. 

The abnormal growth induced by extreme wet weather vitiated the 
experiment how i'\ ci', and its results are not to be relied upon. 

Best average analysis of Calumet Plot No. 2. of 1889 (from the same 
seed): Solids, 21.40; Sucrose. 16.30; Parity, 76.16; Ghieose, 2.50; 
Non-sugar, 2.60. on the one hundred and twenty-sixth day. Best aver- 
age analysis of tlic Standard plot, of 1890: Solids, 19.82; Sucrose, 15.20; 
Purity, 76.69; Glucose, 1.33; Non-sugar, 3.29, on the one hundred and 
forty-fifth day. Best average analysis of Calumet Plot No. 2, 1890: 
Solid.s 19.07; Sucro.<e, 14-. 65; Purity, 76.82; Glucose. 1.80; Non-sugar. 
2.62, on the one hundred and seventeenth day. 

PLOT No. 15. LINK'S HYBRID STANDARD PLOT). Planted with part i.f 
. the seed in Calumet Plot No. 3, of 1889. [No germination tooi< place 
and no canes were secured. This plot was made with the same object as 
the preceding. No. 14.] 

PLOT No. 16. COLMAN CANE. Planted with seed of two canes selected from 
Sterling. Kan.. Plot No. 293, of 1889. Mean analysis of the two 
stalks: Solids, 22.96 ; Sucrose, 18.38 ; Purity, 80.05. Best average and 
single stalk analyses of the parent (Sterling) plot are not known. Best 
average analysis of derivate plot, 1890: Solids, 20.81; Sucrose, 16.35 ; 
Purity, 78.57; Glucose, 0.69 ; Non-sugar, 3.77, on the one hundred and 
twenty-sixth day. Best single stalk of derivate plot, 1890: Solids, 
21.82; Sucrose, 17.05; Purity, 78.14; on the one hundred and thirty- 
eighth day of growth. 

This variety originated at Sterling, being a hj'brid of Kan.sas Orange 
and Early Amber, grown in Sterling Plot No. 153, of 1888, its first trial 
on Calumet being in 1890. 

Seed-heads appeared very uniformly about seventy-six days after 
planting, the canes being then very regular in size, of good appearance, 
and averaging 6J feet in height, the plot being at this time one of the 
finest-looking of the first series. Brittle seed were noted on the one 
hundred and twentieth day, the canes at this date being 7J feet tall, 
stocky and excellent in outward form. This was a heavy seed-produc- 
ing variety here, these not rusting and seldom sprouting in the wet 
weather so often alluded to; this was considered, in all respects, the be.st 
variety of the season. 

PLOT No. 17. PLANTER'S FRIEND. Planted with seed of two canes selected 
from Sterling, Kans.. Plot No. 186. of 1889. Meananaly.sisofthe.se two 
stalks: Solids, 21.61; Sucrose, 16.08; Purity, 74.41. Best average 
analysis of parent plot, 1889: Solids, 20.46; Sucrose, 16.41; Purity, 
79.22; Gluco.se, 0.55 ; Non-sugar, 3.70. Best average analysis of derivate 
plot, 1890: Solids, 20.05; Sucrose, 15.55; Purity, 77.55; Glucose, 1.08; 
Non-sugar, 3.42, on the one hundred and forty-first day. Best singhi 
stalk analysis of parent plot, 1889: Solids, 22.52; Sucrose, 16.75; Purity, 



21 

74.87. Best single stalk of derivate plot, 1890: Solids, 21.62; iSuci-o.^o, 
17.00; Purity, 78.63, on tlie one hundred and thirty-seventh day from 
seeding. 

Tried on Oahunet for thi- first time in 1890. Seed-iu'a(i> appeared 
irregularly, the first eoming ahout the seventy-sixth day. the canes then 
uneven in lieight, ranging from 5 to 8| feet. "Seed had commeneed to 
liarden ])y the one hundred and twenty-first day, the eano at tliis time 
varying from 9 to 11 feet tall, some of them slender, but on the wliolc 
stocky and handsome, exeept for numerous oftshoots. Panicles large. 
loose and drooping. Seed resisting damp weather quite well. Save th<- 
tendency to sprouting, this was among the hest varieties. 

PLOT No. 18. UBEHLANA. Planted with seed from Sterling, Kaii>., Plot Nd. ;;4. 
of 1889, the parent canes being Brix spindh; seleetion.s, all selected upon 
full analysis, having been retained at Sterling. Best average analysis of 
canes from parent plot, Sterling, 1889: Solids, 19.34; Su<-rose, 14.07: 
Purity, 72.75; Glucose. 1.97; Non-sugar, 3.30. Best av(M-agc analysis 
of derivate plot, 1S90: Solids, 19.15; Sucrose, 14.10; Purity, 73.63; Glu- 
cose, 2.14; Non-sugar, 2.91, on the one hundred and forty-first day. 
Best single stalk of parent plot. Sterling, 1889: Solids, 19.98; Sucrose, 
14.81; Purity, 74.12. Best single stalk of derivate plot, 1890: Solids. 
19.95; Sucrose. 14.(50; Purity, 73.18. on thi> one hundred iind thirty- 
fourth day after idauting. 

Seed-heads showed about the ninety-sixth day, the canes averaging 10 
feet in height. Hard seed first noted on the one hundred and thirty-tliird 
day. the canes at this period being very uniform in development and 
ahout 10^ to 11 feet tall. These were tlie largest canes, in diameter, of 
the season, bearing seed ]dentifidly in the large, o])en paniele>. Some 
tillering from thi' base was observed, but very little other s|iroutiin;- 
compared with most varieties. A promising cane in size, form and juice- 
])roductiveness, liut the i|uality of the juice was under the avei'age. 

PLOT No.l9. LINK'S HYBRID AND WHITE INDIA(Cross). Seed obtain. d 
from Sterling, Kans. Small canes, jioor juice and badly sprouteil and 
mildewed seed were the characteristic features of the ])lot. Fault- of 
cultivation and soil may explain the first two, but the last failing i- a bad 
one, and but too strongly suggestive of the usual experience witli White 
India stock in the Calunu't ex])eriments. The variety will not be con- 
tinued. 

Comparison of the l)est average analysis of eacli of tlie fore- 
going varieties in 1890, with the corresponding analysis of 1880. 
shows marked improvement in quality of juice in the following: 
Calumet Plot No. 10 (Sterling Plot No. 51, 1888); Calumet Plot 
No. 13 (Sterling Plot No. 14, 1888) ; slight advance in case of Cal- 
.umet Plot No. 1, Early Orange; Plot No. 8, Improved Orange; 
Plot No. 18, Ubehlana. No material difference exists between 
analyses of 1889 and 1890 in case of Plot No. 2, Early Orange : Plot 
No. G, Late Orange; Plot No. 14, the "standard" jilot of Earl}- 



22 

Oran«j:e. Plot No. 8, Link's Hybrid; Plot No. 4, White India, 
and Plot No. 17, Planter's Friend, all show decided decline. Sev- 
eral varieties, no analyses of which were made at Calumet, or of 
which the Sterling analyses are not available, can not, of course, 
be compared, nor an}' decision reached as to their improvement 
or retrogression. A few plots were so close to ditchbanks that 
one side could not be cultivated. Rain is thought to liave so 
hurried the growth of the canes in many instances, and to have 
so earl}' jiroduced the various forms of oft'shoots, that a normal 
maximum was never attained. Some plots even reached their 
highest analj^sis and began to decline before the seed were entirely 
matured. 

The second series or planting of sorghum was made on April 
25th, thirty-two days after the tirst was seeded and in the same 
location, the land at this date being in good order, but very moist. 
This planting was of three varieties, each a duplicate of a plot 
of the earlier series. The following are their descriptions: 



PLOT No. 20. EARLY ORANGE, rianted with a i<.'^^<'rvcd {.nrtion of tin- svpil 
used for Calumet Plot No. 2 (which see for derivation, etc.). Best aver- 
age analysis of this derivate plot, 1890: Solids, 18.75; Suerose, 14.5-5; 
Purity, 77.60; Glucose, 2.41; Non-sugar, 1.79, on the one hundred and 
ninth day. Best single stalk analysis dei-ivate plot, 1890: Solids, 20.42; 
Sucrose, 15.85; Purity, 77. G2, on the one hundred and twenty-third day. 
The seed from which this plot grew, although hadly weevil-eaten, 
came up finely and gave a perfect stand. The surrounding cro]i (corn) 
was high at the time this (second) series of plots was seeded, and the 
young sorghum was shaded by it rather too much. This row also suf- 
fered from want of ciiltivation on the side next the ditchhank. Seed- 
heads had fornu'd on the sixty-fourth day, the canes averaging five feet 
tall, but slender and uneven in development. Hard and brittle seed were 
noted on the one hundred and twelfth day. These canes were slendei-er 
than those of Plots 1, 2 and 14, which were of the same variety. The 
seed did not sprout on the heads, but gained a peculiar '•bleached" look. 
Wind bent the stalks greatly, and on the whole the plot was not consid- 
ered a success. 

PLOT No. 21. LINK'S HYBRID. Planted with a portion of seed reserved from 
that used fm- CaUnuet Plot No. 3, 1890. Best average sample of this 
derivate plot, 1890: Solids, 19.92; Sucrose, 14.60; Purity, 73.29; Glucose, 
0.94; Non-sugar, 4.83, on the one hundred and niueteehth day from seed- 
ing. Best single stalk of ttiis derivate plot, 1890: Solids, 19.85; Sucrose, 
16.00; Purity, 80.60, on the one hundred and thirtieth day. 

Condition of land, shade, etc.. as in case of plot No. 20, preceding. 
Seed-heads formed by the ^ixty-fourth day, the canes being then (|uite 



23 

« 

uniform hi dovolupinent and ranging in height from 6^ to 7 feet. Hard 
seed were found on the one hundred and twelfth day, the eanes« at this 
time standing some 11 feet tall, with many supplemental heads and other 
ottshoots, although the foliage was yet quite green. Many canes were 
hntken hy the wind and lost, and lodging was frecpicnt from the same 
eause. 

The eancs of this plot were of fair diameter, larger tlian those of th(^ 
duplicate plot No. 8, of the first series, and were of hetter size and gen- 
eral appearance than plots 20 and 22. But few perfect seed were formed 
on the heads of this plot, and many of these were lost tlirouuli rust and 
hlight, though none sprouted. 

PLOT No. 22. UNDENDEBUIiE. ( For derivation, etc., see Calumet Plot No. 
12, 18U0, of which this is a duplicate.) Best average analysis of this 
plot, 1890: 8ol ids, 21.52; Sucrose, 16.60 ; Purity, 77.14 ; Glucose, 0.69 ; 
Non-sugar, 4.23, on the one hundi-ed and nineteenth day. Best single 
stalk analysis of this plot, 1890: Solids, 20.79 ; Sucrose, 17,60; Purity, 
84.65, on the one hundred and twenty-third day after planting. 

The stand in this plot was defective, and many plants were lo.st while 
quite small through the attacks of a gray worm ahout three-(iuarters of 
an inch long, wliich entered the stalk below ground and burrowed 
upward through it. The canes began heading out by the sixtj^-foui*th 
day, hut this only among the larger ones, great irregularity of develo))- 
ment existing. Seed had begun to harden on the one hundred and twelfth 
day, but with gi-eat \:iriation in this respect in different |)arts of the row- 

The plot, although of comparatively slender canes, was a vast 
improvement upon its duplicate of the earlier planting in this: in the 
laboratory, analyses of these stalks ranked among the highest in Sucrose 
and in Puritv. 



Heavy rains and work on tlie levees in face of threatened 
floods continued to prevent proper attention being paid to the 
sorghnni experiments until May 12tli. On this and the following 
day, the first and second plantings, now very foul with grass from 
the enforced neglect, were hoed, the second planting having at this 
<late reached its seventeenth day, with a height of about three 
inches; its stand then appearing very satisfactory. The second 
series was planted very nearly at the date when it would be advis- 
able to seed a field for the mill, and its suffering from the unfavor- 
able weather it encountered, while in some respects not so great as 
that of the first and third series, was still serious and suflicient to 
render the result disappointing. 

Comparing the average analyses of the second series with those 
of the parent plots of 1889, Early Orange (N"o. 20) and Link's 
Hybrid (No. 21) are found to liave fallen off. The best average 



24 

.imalysis of the parent (Sterling) plot of Undendebule, of 1880, is 
not known, and no comparison can be had. 

By contrasting the plots of the second series with their dupli- 
cates of the first planting (of the same season, 1890), Link's Hybrid 
is seen to have given a lower analysis on the best average sample 
in case of Plot Xo. 21. Early Orange and Undendebule of the 
second series exhibit no very marked difiierences between the best 
average analyses secured with them and with their duplicates of 
the earlier planting. 



The third planting, made May 17th, and comprising plots of 
four varieties, was given special care, as the seed in the case of 
each was derived from a single cane which had shown the highest 
juice analysis for a single stalk of the variety the season preceding. 
A place was found for these }>hits near the plantation residence in 
a garden which had never been manured. The soil was deeply 
spaded and thrown up into Iteds, in which tlie seed was sown liy 
hand in drills. This locality was chosen as a place safer from the 
incursions of men and stock than the fields, and in this respect it 
proved satisfactory, although it was found otherwise objectionable. 
The plots from single seed-heads Avero Colnnin Cane, Early Orange^ 
Link's Hybrid and Late Orange. In addition to those named, 
three special plots were made a few days later. One of these, Plot 
I^o. 23, was of a variety from India, ALapore Jowar, its first trial 
in America being this season (1890). This plot was planted near 
the first four in the garden referred to. The two remaining, JnTos. 
24 and 25, were placed in the field with the plots of the second 
series. The necessary thinning was given these plots on June 2d. 
While the plots in the garden were very young, insects becauie so 
numerous among them that an application of Paris green was 
made, but this, while it killed the insects, also destroyed nearly all 
the foliage, and from the eftects of this loss of their leaves the 
plants never seemed to fully recover. Ph^ts "D" (Late Orange) 
and jSTo. 23 (Alapore Jowar) were further injured by the shade of 
several large live-oaks near them and did not grow well. 

From single heads were derived the following : 

PLOT "A." COLMAN CANE. The original unix'digreea seed, from a AugU- 
head, was phiiited at Sterling, Kan., in Plot No. l.'jS, of 1888. The be.«t 
single stalk selected from that plot gave jniee analysis: .Solids. 22. 50; 



25 

Sucrose, 17.18; Purity, 76.:J5; Glucose, 0.58; Nnn-sui;;ir, 4.74, on tlic 
one hundred and forty-fourth day from planting, this hciu'; Sci'ial Xn. 
.652, of Sterling, 1888. The seed of the foregoing >lalk. i-lantcii at 
Sterling as Plot No. 293, of 1889, afforded as its best single caiir one willi 

the following analysis (Serial No. 13,103): Solids, ; Sucro>r, 20.72: 

Parity, ; Glucose, ; Non-sugar, , on tlic one huiulrcd 

and lifty-fourth day of grt>\vth. Of its seed-head. No. 13,103, one-half 
was sent to Calumet by Mr. A. A. Denton, and there jilanted as Plot 
'•A," 1890. The canes of this plot were all analyzed, one by one, the 
mean analysis of the whole number (96) being: Soli(i>. T.L'.il ; Suero-e. 
15.12; Purity, 75.94. The best' single stalk secured fniin Plot '-A,' 
1890: Solids, 22.68; Sucrose, 17.85; Purity, 7S.7] ; Glucose. 0.53; 
Non-sugar, 4. .30, on the one hundred and seventli day of growth. 

Seed-heads appeared by the sixty-seventh day, the, caiio at that date 
being irregular in height, ranging from 6.V to 9.} feet. NVlwn >eed had 
begun to harden, about the one hundred and third day, ^reat uniformity 
had been gained, tlie canes being stocky, erect and liandsonie. 'N'ery few 
seed were lost from sprouting, and wind did not ajipreciably affect the 
plot, which wa- tl:e most successful one in every way of tlie third series. 

PLOT "B." EARLY ORANGE. Planted with seed from tbe be,4 -ingle >talk 
selected fmni Cahimct Plot No. 2, of 1889. The analysis of the stalk 
furnishing this >eed was: Solids, 23.50; Sucrose, iS.O-j; Purity, 76.80: 
Glucose, 1.42; Non-sugar, 4.03, on the one hundred and seventeenth 
dav from idanting. Becau.se of the small size of many canes of thi.- 
])lot and the danuiged (sprouted) seed, the original intention of analyz- 
ing each individual .stalk could not be carried out, but every healthy 
cane was sepai'ately analyzed, and when the number of tlie>e was ex- 
hausted, the remaining one hundred were cut, mille(l and tlie mixed 
juice analyzed as an average sample. The mean of all the analyses ot 
the plot (made on one hundred and sixty-eight cane> in all) was: .Solids, 
13.95; Sucrose, 9.32; Purit}% 66.81. Best single stalk analyzed in Plot 
"B:" Solids, 20.28; Sucrose, 15.35; Purity, 75.69; Glucose, 0.59; Non- 
sugar, 4.34, on the one hundred and seventh day of <;rowth. The amily- 
sis of the large iiverage sample: Solids, 12.76; Suerosi'. S.OO: Purity, 
62.69; Glucose, 1.43; Non-sugar, 3.33, on the oni- hundred and twenty- 
second day. 

Seed-heads were nearly all in sight by the sixty-seveiitii ihty. tbe canes 
being at an average lieight of 8 feet, but very un-uniform. By the one 
hundred and third day the seed weiv almost all hard. Tlie canes of this 
plot were of better size than those in the other plots of Early ()rang<' of 
this year, such as Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 20. but were prostrated by the wind 
and lodged badly. ^Mueh seed was rendered worthies.- tbrouiib siirouting. 

PLOT "C." LINK'S HYBRID. Planted with seed of tiie best single cane 
selected from Calumet Plot No. 3, of 1889, the juice of the ])arent cane 
having given upon analysis: Solids, 22.00; Sucrose, 18.2t»; Purity. 83.00: 
Gluco.se, 1.47 ; Non-sugar, 2.27, on its one hundred and eighteenth day. 
Sixty-live single stalk analj'ses were made upon canes of this derivatc plot, 
and when all that were fit for seed selection had been used, the reununing 
72 stalks were cut and analyzed as an average sample, the mean ;inalysis ot 



26 

the wliulc miinbtT (18(j) Ix-iiiy: Solids, ItJ.lU; Siktosc, 12.01; Purity, 
74.59. The bes^t single stalk analysis of this plot was: Solids, 19.48; 
Sucrose, 15.60; Purity, 78.54; Glucose, 0.36; Non-sugar, 3.52, on the one 
hundred and ninth day. The large average sample, 72 canes cut on the 
one hundred and twenty-fourth day, furnished a juice analysis of : Solids, 
15.08; Sucrose, 11.25; Purity, 74,()U; Glucose, 0.3;i; Non-sugar, 3.50. 
Seed-heads were out hy the sixty-seviMith day, the canes then being 
<iuite green and vigorous, erect and ap})earing uniform in all respects, 
averaging 10 feet tall. By the one hundred and thiixl day the seed were 
nearly all hard, without marked increase in height of the canes. A good 
stand was secured in this ])lot, and (juite handsome canes until the long- 
rains liad spoil(>d tliem. Not many scccl were foi'ined on the heads, but 
these remained sound. .Many supplemi'Utal heads and other offshoots 
developed. 

PLOT "D." LATE ORANGE. Planted with seed of tin- h.-st single cane selected 
from Calumet Plot No. H. of 1889, the juice of tiie parent cane showing 
upon analysis: Solids, 22.80; Sucrose, 18.11; Purity, 79.42; Gluco.se. 
1.17; Non-sugar, 3.52, on the one hundnid and thirty-first day of growth. 
But eight single stalk analyses of this derivate j)lot could be made : The 
one hundred and thirty-four canes renniining after these (and a small 
average sample) were cut. were divided itiid analyxed as two samples. 
Mean of all analyses made u)io«i the plot (comprising one hundred and 
forty^-seven canes): Solids, 12.05; Sucrose, 7.70; Purity. 03.90. The 
largest of the aventge samples analyzed (com|irising one hundred and 
sixteen canes), cut on the one hundred and nineteenth day, gave: 
Solids. 11.94; Sucrose, 7. Ho; Purity, ti4,15; Glucose, 2.18; Non-sugar, 
2.11. Best single stalk analysis of Plot "D:" Solids, 14.58; Sucrose, 
10,20; Purity, 69.96 : Glucose, 1.85; Non-sugar, 2.53. on thr .me hun- 
di-ed and nintli day. 

The canes of this plot, though uniform in all regards, were very slen- 
der and inferior. On the sixty-seventh day, when the mean height was 
about 7 feet, all the seed-heads had appeai'ed, and a few were beginning to 
darken in color. About the ninety-fifth day the seed were hard and 
])rittle. 

This was the worst situated of the four lettered plots, being not only 
w(n'st-.shaded by the live-oaks, but located, besides, upon a narrow belt of 
stifl^" clay, which traversed the garden, intersecting a large part of this 
row. These canes were not so badly wind-wrecked as those of the Early 
Orange plot. '■ H." though much bent and lodged. 

Of tlie four plots just described, " A " (Colinau Cane) was farth- 
est from the oaks, and did not materially suffer from tlie inffuence 
of their sliade. It was also located in a portion of the garden 
attbrding soil of moderately loose texture, its character becoming 
stiffer and more clayey as the other plots, "B," "C" and " D, " 
were jipproached. 

At the ends of each row (where drainage was best) grew the 



27 

laigest and finest-looking canes, and the plots were progressively 
of handsomer and better plants as the}' were further from the 
shade and clayey land. 

As these four plots were in a portion of the garden upon which 
IK) fertilizer had ever been used, tankage was applied (equivalent 
in amount to 450 pounds per acre) on the twenty-eighth daj' after 
l»hinting, thorough spading having been given these plots a day or 
two in advance. The wisdom of this fertilization was afterward 
questioned. 

l>v comparison of analyses, the best single cane of each of the 
four plots is seen to be far inferior to the parent cane from which 
each was derived. Cohnan Cane, of the first planting, Plot No. 16, 
did not furnish so good a single-stalk analysis as did Plot " A."' 
*'B"" (Early Orange) and " C " (Link's Hybrid) fall not very far 
belli ml the plots of these varieties of the second series, but coni- 
l>are much less favorably with those of the first planting. Plot 
*'D "' (Late Orange) gave results which have no comparative value, 
as its nornuil growth was prevented, by shade and other influences 
mentioned, to an extreme degree. On the whole, no marked im- 
provement was observed in these four, due to their derivation from 
single-selected heads, excepting as to uniformity, which was very 
marked in " A " and (piite noticeable in "B " and " C " [the irregu- 
hu'ity of size existing in I'lot " B "' at an early period disappeared 
at a hiter stage]. 



The three " special "plots mentioned a few pages back Avere the 
following, all of them planted with seed sent by Mr. A. A. Denton, 
of Sterling, Kan. : 

PLOT No. 23. ALAPORE JOWAR. Plant. m1 witli s.v.l from .SLTliiig. Kan., 
the variotv described as one tVoui which siiyar has been habitually made 
by primitive processes in India. Previously to 1.S90 the variety has never 
been tried in America, and no I'elialde recoi-ds of it are to lie had. 

This seed was planted near Plots "A." " l>,' "('," "]>," but in a 
part of the narden e\en worse shaded. Few canes were secured and 
fewer could be analyzed because of their very small size. The highest 
single stalk analysis was: .Solids, 17.SS; Sucrose, 12.B0; Purity, 70.47; 
(jrlucose, 0.65; Non-sugar, 4.()o, on the one hundred and fourth day of 
growth. The canes were dry and corky and yielded but little juice. 
The firm, compact seed-head is bent over as in the "Gooseneck" form, 
and in this lies one objection to the variety. No further trial will pi-ob- 
ablv be "-iven it on Calumet. 



28 > 

PLOT No. 24. LINK'S HYBRID VARIATION. Planted in the o),,.!, tirld xvith 
xi'cd rcft'ived from Stei'lint;-, Kan. (No analyses niailc ) 

PLOT No. 25. LINK'S HYBRID AND AMBER (Cross), riaiiled in tiu 
field, near tlie t'dre^-dinsj;, w itli seed i'cci'i\ cd from Sti'i'lini;-. A'ery sleiidei- 
<'anes, iiiueli daniati'ed 1)y wind and >|iri)nting. (No analyses made.) 

Laboratory work of the second season, 1890, began on July 
19th, the one hundred and seventeenth daj^ after the planting of 
the 24th of March preceding, several plots of that series appear- 
ing then sufiiciently mature to need attention, and during the 
ensuing week ten plots were examined. Average sam})les of each 
were taken, and analyses of these made in order to determine 
their state of maturity, to contrast their value and to decide wliich 
[)]ots were ready for the work of seed-selection. 

All the varieties of Orange of the tirst planting and Link's 
Hybrid (Plot jSTo. 3) were found very near full maturitj', and 
upon these the siugle-stalk Avork was begun at once, liainy 
weather had now set in, attended with liigh temperatures, and 
this continued sixty-nine days, or until September 25th, with dis- 
astrous eifect upon all the plantings, causing an abnornud develop- 
ment of offshoots, and producing much germination of the see<l 
in the glumes; the latter result being chiefly marked in varieties 
with compact heads. It had been anticipated tliat certain varie- 
ties known to mature early — such, for example, as Earh' Orange — 
would pass maturity before much attention would be needed by 
those of slower growth, as lied Liberian or Colman Cane. Yet 
all the varieties of the iirst planting were at their best by July 
30th (the one hundred and twenty-eighth day), and the best analy- 
ses of this series were all obtained prior to August 25th, the one 
hundred and fifty-fourth day, after which period a general decline 
was observed. 

On the 12th of August, the one hundred and ninth day from 
planting, the first analysis of the second series, made on an aver- 
age sample drawn from Plot No. 20, Early Orange, showed a 
sucrose content of 14.55 per cent., and single-stalk selection was 
commenced with this plot on August 18th, Plots Nos. 21 and 22 
coming in by the 22d of that month. Selection was continued 
upon canes from the above three plots until the first week of Sep- 
tember. 

Upon the third series seed selection began Septend^er 1st, the 
one hundred and seventh day. Alapore Jowar, a plot planted in 



29 

tlie same locality, was found to have suffered the almost complete 
Idss of its seed tlirough the inroads of swarms of insects. The 
canes were small and woody, i)erliaps owing to })oorly prepared 
soil, shade and Avant of cultivation. 

Plot " A.," Colman Cane, was the only one with which the 
original plan of separately analyzing each individual cane could 
be accomplished. The rest, especially "D" (Late Orange), were 
analyzed cane by cane as long as practicable, then by cutting down 
the remaining canes and analyzing them as large average samples. 
When these average analyses were made, the whole number of 
seed-heads in each sample was tied in a bundle, labeled with the 
corresponding analysis and preserved as " general stock," which, 
being derived from " single-head " plots, might be appropriately 
used in the planting of large field-plots for experiments in tonnage 
and the like. 

In case of each of the plots of the third planting, every normal 
cane was ground and its juice analyzed; hence the means of the 
total plot analyses were made practically comparable with each 
other and with the analyses of the parent canes. 

To make sure that the conclusions based upon analyses of aver- 
age samples were not deceptive, a trial was made on two occa- 
sions by sending out the sample-boy, ignorant of our design, with 
orders to cut, in the usual manner, fifteen consecutive canes from 
certain plots, and Avhen these had been brought in and milled, 
sending him again, this time to cut down all the remaining canes, 
which were then ground as large samples and analyzed for com- 
}tarison with the ones first taken. The results were as follows : 

S(ILn>S. SUCROSK. PIRITV. GLUCUSK. 
Edi-lii Oriniijr, Au-ur^t oO, IS'.K). 

Fifteen can es 17.45 10.50 tiO.l? 2.70 

Who]e reiiKiining plot 16.55 12.05 72.81 1.0»i 

Wh iff India, September 4. 1890. 

Fifteen canes 11). 72 13.10 66.33 1.87 

AVh. lie rcniiiinini;- plot 17.45 12.65 72.40 0.65 

Viidfuilehulr (siinie date). 

Pift.'.-n eanes 18.45 12.50 67.75 1.35 

WIimIc reniaininii- ]ilot 16.45 11.90 72.34 0.51 

We are hence justified in considering that the average samples 
taken have somewhat fairly represented the character of the plots 
which they were intended to represent, the variations beino- in 



both directions and counteractinff one anotlier. It is certain that 
our average samples liave not been too high. 

The above plots, when these experiments were made, had 
passed maximum and were no longer useful for seed selection ; but 
it can not be admitted that this fact injures the value of the test, 
whicli was simply the decision Avhether a small number of the 
canes could, with sufficient accuracy, be held to represent tlie 
whole. 

During the 1890 experiments, an error was committed in phmt- 
ing many of the seed-selection plots with seed from more than one 
head. This was done under the fear lest a single head might not 
furnish enough seed to give a sufficient quantity of canes, and be- 
cause, in some cases, it was desirable that there should be two 
plots made from the same lot. A misapprehension of the percent- 
age of fertile seed led to this mistake, and the thinning re(|uired 
by the plots was evidence that single heads would have furnished 
all the seed ordinarily needed. Future plots for the jmrpose of 
growing pedigreed seed will, tlierefore, be planted from single 
heads only. 



A record of all the varieties of sorghum which have been tried 
on Calumet is given in Table I., commencing in each case 
with the best average sample analyses obtained at the station from 
which they were brought, in the season preceding the first trial at 
Calumet. 

The analyses are of average samples taken from the i)arent plots, 
when they are known, and when not, from the variety only, such 
substitution being indicated when it has been made. 



i 



-1888.- 



lli'cui-il 111' Vaiii'tics tried on Caliiim't. Average Analyses. 
1 889. 



Kaiiy (trail!.'!' iKai 
Kiirlv Orauf!;!' (I-a. 
Link's Hvl.riii . 
Wliiii- IiiiHa . . 
Iti-il Lil.i-iiini . . 
Lilt.- iiiiiii^v . . 



i.hii' 



liiipn 



•li (ii-i 



SIlTlillji 1.1,11. N„ 

Sti-iliiiK pint. Nil 

Stcrliii!; pldt, N.i 

Steiiiiij; pliit. N. 

■■Wliii.- Iii.Um . 



1 ,SKS I 
1 SSS ) 
ISSS) 



Sterling, 
Sti'iliiig, 
SteiiiiiK, 
StwrliiiB, 
StPiliiiK, 
Stcilinft, 
Stri-liiiK, 

StCTlillJi-. 

StvrUiiK, 
StiTliii!.', 
Sti'i-liiiji, 
Sli'i-liiifi, 

StiTlill-, 
SIcllilliT. 



.• 




~ 


t 


- 


^ 


- 


'■^ 


72.'.1J 


l.:i:i 


7-^. 117 


l.Ki 


7:i.iM; 


1.02 


711. 7ii 


2.:!2 


(ll.:ili 


:!.24 


(•.■•|.44 


2. (ill 


7-J.ii:i 


2.27 




(I.C'j 


74.41 
D'l.Cl 


i!i;i 



IlKMAKKS. 



:).(;2 

2.7" 
4.4(1 



Karly Oiaii^ic ( Ka 
Karlv Oi'iiiini' ( ''ii 
Link's Ilvl.riil . 
Wliit,. In.lia . . 
'Ki'.l LiLiriiiii . 
Lati' (liiiii^v . . 



Muii.li 
linpr, 



Ml dr. 
ik . 

lis;- 1. 1.. I, 

:.i..t, 
1.1..I, 



St.'ili 

StiTli 

llcllill) 

I'll. llMl. 1,1. 111.' 

('..Iniaii ('.111. 
I'lantfi's i''ri 
Ubehlana . 
Link's llvl. 
lll.lia (Cr. 



Calillii.-l 
CalniiiHt 
Calunii't 
Caluiii,'! 
Caliliiii't 
CahiliK-t 
Cahuiu't 
<'aliiiii,-t 
Cahinu-t 
('ahii,i,'t 
Caliilu.'f 
CaluiiH't 
L'aliiiiH-t 
Sterling, 
Sterling, 
Sterling, 
Sterling, 
Sterling, 



IMai.lii 


La. 


I'lai.t'i. 


La. 


Vhilit'ii 


La. 


nalifli 


La. 


I'lalit'n 


La. 


I'lalifn 


La. 


I'lalit'n 


La. 


riaiifii 


La. 


Plaill'li 


La. 


I'ial.fli 


La. 


I'laiil'li 


La. 


I'lalifli 


La. 


Kiiii 




Kan. . 




Kan. 




Kan. . 




Kan. . 





11!. (12 
1(i.:iii 
li;.44 



14. Nl 
11.74 
S.17 



7.V21 
7(i.l(> 
711.42 
MAX 
.".7.:w 
7!l.42 



2.2:i 
2.1."> 

' 2!4!i 



) Nil average analyses inarle ; iiieaii of 
t all single stalks given insteail. 



Sterling analyses of 18811 not kii. 
Sterling analyses of 1889 not km 
Sterling analyses of 188!) not kii. 



-1890. 



Karly Orange (Kan. seeil) , 
Early Orange (La. wed) 
Link's Ilyl.iid 
Wl.il.- la.li.i . 
'•■K,.,l Lil...,i„„ 
Late llraiig.' . 
lli.ii.liniis (.liseontii 
■ange 



eiie.k 



ne.l) 



(1888) 
(1888) 



Sl.Tliiig],!.,!, 
Sl.Tlilig pi, It, 
SliTlii.g plot, No.l.-|(il 
SU-iliiig pl.)t. No. 14 (1,SS8) 
Hi.ii.lanis Variation . . . 
Iiiiileiuloliaio .... 

Colmaii Cniie 

Planter's Friend 

Ubehlana 

Link's Hybrid and Wlii 

India (Cross) 

.Vlapore Jowar 



Caliiinet 
Caluniet 
ralninet 
Calumet 
Caluniet 
Caliini,.t 
Caluin.'t 

Call t 

Cul.ini.t 
Cal.ii.i..t 
CalilMi.'t 
Calllin.t 
Cal.ini.'l 
CaliiMi.f 
Cahini.'l 
(!aliinu't 
Calumet 
Calumet 



I'lant'i 
Planfi 



Plant' 
Plant' 



15.55 
14.65 
15.8IJ 
15.25 
12.80 
1U.30 

nisi 

i4!5(l 
ll.GO 

i.3!05 
15.55 
I6.'25 
16.;i5 
15.55 
14.10 



68.;i8 
78.82 



77.:i2 
77.71 
78..-17 



14.00 7:i.i;i 

10.50 74.211 



1.35 .■).(i7 
O.Uli 2.'JII 



Calumet I'lot, N.I. .■•|.\. 



f N.i an..lvt 
( Ibis pi 



N" satisfactory b 
il.i from Sterling 



to n'pla 



111. I Caliim 
t Plot N... 



■t Plot .\.l 
; of 18811. 



*Secd grov 
is not known. 



I'lot No. 131, of 18SII, of wlii.h 111,, h. 



:n 



Table II., following, presents the result of all the single stalk 
analyses of sorghuni made here, in a form to facilitate comparison 
of the work done in 1889 and 18!»0, and to show the improvement 
(or its reverse) resulting from one 3'ear's propagation by selected 
stock. In actual Held experiments, single varieties have been rep- 
resented in different plots, of various origin or dates of planting ; 
but to avoid needless complication each variety has been treated, 

1 collating the analyses, as though of but one plot, and time of 
seeding, no distinction, for example, being made between Plots 1 
and 2 of Early Orange, or the 1890 Plots 3, 21 and " C " of Link's 
Hybrid, the former two having different origin and the latter 
three being plantings of different date. The standard of purity 
and sucrose adopted, it should be said, is quite arbitrary, and is 

hosen as a fair average for our sorghum. 



H -£ 

H I. 

ffl|3 

<! ^: o 

Hi 5*0 



iTj^J 



:: ojj 



.^ 


«)-( 


bJ] O 














a) 


a> 


''A 


^ 








> 


o 


^ 




o 









St,? 









cOrH c oj'^O^ a; o c 
-* t- ;^ 2 W (M lO 2 2 2 



I- q; c i^ i^ ' 



^ 



rr S' <» i - 



O O CO 05 Qj a; ^ 



-f v: ^ I — ^ X -^ 

■* l^ o i^ l^ t^ 1-^ 

t-^ CM 



'2f p " E oi k! i: 



00 X 

X X 
X X 



i_o '^T T— I 



. GJ O •- 



^^^2; 



ii «= 

i^ 



OS :: 









!ili-i;>p:;i-^!x|>^;5x^i^ 



t-' CO CO 2 «' 2 CO 2 2 2 «5 



Oicoco 2jC^ a; CO CO a,i-ii:^ 

CO d ■ 2 -O 2 -N CO 2 T-J r^ 



OOl~i— '^COi— l-rflXySOW 



X X X X 

X X X X 
X X X X 

'^C^COO 

e^^ ' 1-H CO lO ■>* 

SP^.2 S ?r "O • c o d d 

P Jr-^ 'g C' :„ re ^ !^ >^ 1^ ^ 

^ W M J 2 g ^ S irj ^, M b£ 

>^-'^^ 5 k5 ^ rS £ S .S .S .S .= 



33 



111 the foregoing table, the only marked improvement in both 
sucrose and purity is exhibited by Improved Orange. Early 
Orange gained slightly in purit}', while falling oif greatly in 
sucrose content. Link's Hybrid shows decline in V)Oth sucrose and 
purit}', which is true also of Late Orange. Several varieties failed 
altogether to attain the standard of purity or sucrose in either 
year, and in case of these, as also of varieties cultivated here for 
but one of the seasons given, no improvement or depreciation is 
shown in the table. 

Unfortunately, in the two seasons thus contrasted, an important 
condition for rendering the comparison a fair one was lacking, due 
to the disturbing influence of the opposite character of the grow- 
ing seasons experienced by tlie plantings of the two j^ears, the first 
season (1889) giving a wet period during germination, and a 
drontli later on, and the second (1890) reversing the order com- 
pletely tortile first series of experiments, and giving the two later 
ones a wet season throughout. It is impossible to say just in what 
way, or how much these varying seasons have infinenced the cult- 
ural work, but tliat their efl'ect has been the prime factor in the 
many irregularities encountered seems almost certain. 

In Table III. are given the best three analyses of single stalks 
for each plot grown at Calumet during 1890. A few varieties are 
omitted, which for various reasons were not subjected to sufficient 
analyses to warrant their insertion. The highest percentages of 
sucrose and of purity are taken, regardless of the full analysis of 
the canes, and in many instances the highest percentage in sucrose 
may be furnished by the stalk giving purity third in rank, etc. 
The highest analysis for each planting and plot of a variety is 
given. 



.^z; 



So I 



' ■^. ?. =^s 525= s'i >,- a 

^^.C i_0 C.^w g„Q -^O -i^wi. »*^Q 

"- "_c^ .2.£Tf< "©.Ssi sSx B2'^. s5o 



[3A,C^ ja.S --£- <c-C 0(1, 



3 O — i; 



KAh^- iJPh5^ kIP-S- 



H 
H 
H 









>5--^ "^"^ ■f'"^ '^'"'? =-''" 

.= Z_5 -S^S f^S ~^= 5^^ 
'-^ "^ -•-w ;"c~ Sc^ -ro 



. .. 



3i&.2!- « — S ;-^S,3^ (cP-S. Oft<! 








Ui 


?li 


C «- O' 
03 C ,_ 




h3CL,t 



-M c: X oc t- «; c t :t 
QC t- i-^ 00 00 I- xi-t- 



X :t I- X .'-. -r 







= c 


1 










• --■ 


i 


■ • 


c 

« r- 


1 fU m 






S lis 
St: 


1 IP III 



.).> 



Early Oniiige (Plot No. 2) of the first planting is seen to be 
better in pnrity tlian the same variety grown later in Plot No. 
20. which in tnrn is better than Plot "B," of the third planting. 
Link's Hybrid appears to lose sucrose but to retain pnrity, as the 
date of planting is later, but the differences of soil may have much 
intiuence in both cases. The two plantings of Undendebule show 
but slight difference, which is true also of Colman Cane, Plots 
Nos. 1») and "A." 

Careful examination of all average analyses, field notes and 
seed-heads of both seasons has led to the selection of several vari- 
eties which show special excellence in points considered essential 
in sorghum, which is to be grown for its sugar. Table IV. shows 
the varieties which in either year have been noted for possessing 
any one or more of such characters. 



3 >-• 



i '3d 



> I 



H 



5 =^ 



ffl iJ 



I ^ 






t^ en 





£ 




'- 


= 


:r 


5d 5 








_3 










^ 


P 




^ 


'?■. 


i- a^ 




^' 


^ 


= 


.'^ 


= 






tfj 


^ 


2 


^ 


,^ 


^ — 












^ 






7i 


.— ' 


3 


— 


« 


■T ^ 




^ 




o 


s: 


J 




















2 




3 


.2 


.5 M 




1^ 


;^ 


^ 


^ 


— 







. ^^ 


O 


1 


^ 


"5 


.i. „ 


0) 


1 


= 


J 


-^ 


i; 


t ^. 


CO 


ea 


~ 


P 


5 


= 


= i 


H 




^ 




3 


"^ 


i. a 








■; 




— • 


.. ^ 


H 




i 


^ 


_5 


'^ 


?c S 


M 


z'. 


5 


TI 


:j 


"2 


- "i 




u- 


;d 




13 


ni ^ 


H 




^ 






-• 


. -= 


CD 


r 


1 


= 


S) 


bp 


= 'tH 




^ 


>. 


w' 


- 


2 


~ "^ 


B 


" 


"" 


1 


r 


~ 


1 '* 


(D 


Tc 


ia 


£ 


■^ 


'a. 




1^ 


= 


3 


ij 


'^ 


.5 




1 


i 


it 


_CJ 


& 


i5 "i^ 




^ 


o 


? 


■f 


c 


"Z ^ 




z 


-; 


"■ 


-S 


^' 


— '/- 




V. 


-t 




^ 




'"' 't- 




— 


e 


-; 


■~ 


C: 


i 3 




' xf 
















o 












S 




^ 


'■-' 


a 


■^ e; 










_■ 








^ 


§ 


c 


t^ 


^ J 






s 


r 


is 


5 


^ 5 


_ 




pa 


^ 


H 


— 


_^^ 'ri 




tB 


IT 






■i 






c 


6 


i 


S 


3 


^ 




s 


y. 












- 


u 


3 


7 


s' 


= ] 




c^ 


3 


— 


^ 


X 


r£i 




u 


^ 


2 


;r 


^ 


o 




»3 


nc 




S= 


!j 


rj 






— 












5 












■3 


z 


r 


.;z 




















0) 


^ 


« 


s 


i 






00 




>. 


'Z 


3 






00 


^ 


g 


= 


't: 






H 




^ 


^ 


^ 












-^ 


d 


iJ 




S 


' ft 


M 




to 


bij 


EJ ^ 


H 


►^ 1 


O 


it 


t 


^^ 


J i 


M 





h: 


X. 




1 


- ';; 


H 






_■ 


|2 


c> 




CQ 


1' 


M 


1 


;• 


it 


1 ^ 




— 


:i 


>-. 


>^ 


C 


2 ^ 


B 


=- 


5 


•^ 


u 


; 


X 


(D 


Tc 


-^ 


ii 


"C 


'^ 


-r i 




= 


>3 


5 


m 


Zi 


a 


i 


M 


:2 


SB 


M. 


: •r' 




























y, y 




Z 


_^ 


~ 


— 


~ 


ic ^ 




i ^ 




























Tc 


■t: 


^ 


t: 


';:. 


Z _5 




~ 


i3 


.~ 


,n: 


^ 


■i "^ 




— H 




I-— 


■■^ 


— 


■/; 










_' 










C 


— 


t- 


_ ^ 








p 




















™ -^ 






X 


•A 


E^ 


i 


a X 



37 

The varieties mentioned in Table V. as producing the "best 
seed" have been chosen not onl}- regarding the quantity of seed 
produced, but also its freedom from sprouting in damp weather 
and immunity from rust or bliglit, alid its fertility so far as this 
may be judged from the result of two years' propagating. Free- 
dom from sprouting seems to depend largely upon the character 
of the panicle ami its tendency to retain water. Size of stalk is, 
of course, based u}><)u comparison among our own plots. 



Vari('tii'> noted i'ov \iiln:ilili' ([ualitio during botli season.- 
Plantntion. 



•ultui'f on C'aluint't 



High Siiorosf. 



Late Orange. 

Early ((range. 

Iniiirovod Orange. 



Hittii Puritv. 



Link's Hvliiiil. 

Late Orange. 

Imimived Onc'ge. 



Low Xoii -sugar. 



Late Orange. 
Kiirlv Orange. 



Link's llyliriil. 
Early Orange. 



Laige Canes. 



Link's Hvlirid. 



Table IV. includes several varieties in the 1S!)0 list, which, not 
being grown here the season preceding, can not appear in Table 
v., although in the single year's trial they have given higher 
analyses than, and in other respects have rivaled, many older 
varieties. As seen in Table IV., Link's Hybrid and Early Orange 
each occurs e/r/hf tinns in the list for the two years, Late Orange 
six and Improved Orange fire times. Gooseneck is mentioned 
foar times in the 1889 list, as are Golman Cane, Undendebule 
and Planter's Friend in that of 1890. Red Liberian and ITbehlana 
appear three times each ; the former in l>oth years, the latter in 
1890 only. 

Llaving considered the merits of varieties tried at Calumet 
during 1889 and 1890, these which follow are chosen as worthy of 
eontinued experiment; and as this work is to be pursued another 
year, selection from among them is recommended, if all are not 
again planted: Link's Hybrid, l^ate Orange, Improved Orange, 
Early Orange, Colman Cane, rndendebule, Planter's Friend, Ubeh- 
lana'and Sterling Plot No. 14, of 1888. 

White India gave much promise the first year of its trial here, 
altliough but few canes were raised because of faulty seed, which 
failed to germinate well. These few, however, were of good size 



38 

and produced juice of t^ood (juality. But in 1890 the seed ivoni 
large and apparently strong canes of the former season yielded 
canes much smaller and slenderer than tliose of the parent plot, 
and scarcely any seed was crtjtaiiied from them, the glumes lieing 
either empty or inclosing bliglited grains, crumlding on pressure. 
This, perhaps, was partly the effect of wet weather, but it seems 
also probable tiiat the sparse stand of 1889 may have hindered 
perfect fertilization of the flowers. Although in many orders of 
plants cross-pollenization is necessary to fertiHty, the writer can 
not say whether this is in any degree true also with sorglium. 
Should White India be retained here, entirely new stock should 
l)e procured. 

Red Liberian might with advantage be continued, though it 
has not given very good results in the fleld or laboratory thus far 
at Calumet. After heading the list of varieties for excellence at 
Sterling in 1888, it fairly fell out of the race at that station again 
in 1889. Its growth here as a forage crop for many years, and 
with entire success, shows the titness of the variet}', from the 
purely agricultural standpoint to the local conditions of climate, 
soil, etc., and by selection it might l)e improved. 

DISEASE, DAMAGE BY INSECTS, ETC. 

While carrying on the cultural experiments with sorghum. 
quite full notes were kept of the diseases, a'onormal hal)its of 
growth and insect depredations affecting the plant from timeto 
time. Early in course of the work of 1889, Mr. Thoiupson 
noticed that many canes broke off very mysteriously a short dis- 
tance above o-ronnd and on examination he found this to be the 
work of a burrowing larva. After laboratory work commenced, 
many canes were found attacked in this manner by the " tropical 
borer" {Chilo saccharalis), v:h\ch enters near a node or joint of the 
stalk and tunnels through the stem until the next joint stops liis 
progress, canes thus injured usually developing an intense red 
coloration of the pith and juice of the punctured section, this often 
extending several joints above and below the one eaten into. The 
deserted burrows were sometimes occupied l)y colonies of a small 
beetle not identified. The cane borer was unusually common, 
that season, in the tropical cane crop. 

A diseased condition of many canes was also very noticea])le : 
when split longitudinally the }>ith was more or less extensively 



39 

and deeply red, and tlie juice expressed from sueli stalks was 
colored in the same manner. The leaves, sheaths and })ortions of 
the stem exhibited patches of dark reddish orange, these often 
nearly black centrally. This diseased'condition is treated at some 
length in Bulletin No. 5, of the Kansas State Agricultural Col- 
lege, for 1888, and is attributed to a microscopic organism, Bacil- 
lus sorf/hi, said to exist in the affected plants and in the soils where 
they have been grown. 

According to the notes on tliis subject, the varieties which in 
-1889 were found worst injured by borers (varying from '20 to 90 
per cent, of the whole number of canes examined) were : Early 
Orange (Plot ISTo. 1), both plots of White India, Improved Orange, 
Calumet Plot No. 11 (Sterl. Plot No. 36, 1888) and Calumet Plots 
13 and loP (Sterl. Plot No. 14, 1888). Less damage was sustained 
by Red Liberian, Late Orange, Honduras and Calumet Plot No. 
10 (.^terl. Plot No. 51, 1888). Plot No. 2 of Early Orange was 
almost free from borers, and Link's Hybrid notably so. 

Worst affected by the Bacillus sorf/hi were Plot No. 1, of Early 
Orange, Red Liberian, Honduras and Calumet Plot No. 10. Late 
Orange, Improved Orange, Gooseneck and Calumet Plot No. 11 
were not so much diseased, and Plot No. 1 of Early Orange, 
Link's Hybrid, both plots of White India and the du|>licate Cain- 
met Plots Nos. 13 and 13P scarcely at all. 

Ants are sometimes troublesome eating the seed while it is in a 
soft condition, but they are not numerous, and their inroads are 
usually confined to a few canes in one or two rows. 

The freedom from the cane borer noticed in the sorghum as 
well as in the tropical cane of 1890, is considered to have resulted 
from the very warm winter of 1889 and 1890, inducing premature 
emergence of the grubs, and their probable destruction in great 
numbers by tlie late and severe freeze of March, 1890. The dis- 
ease caused by the B. sorghi was comparatively rare also among 
the 1890 plots, and occurred often enough to ])e notic^ed only in 
the following : Early Orange, L^behlana, Liidv's Hybrid, Undeu- 
debule and Late Orange, affecting canes of these varieties ecjually 
in the first, second and third plantings. 

The tendency of sorghum cane to sprout supplemental secd- 
heads from the axils of the leaves is a common fault, and though 
these offshoots are usually few and confined to the upper part of 
the stalk, yet in long-continued rains, or after injury to the stem. 



40 

the wliok' energy of the plant seems devoted to their production, 
two and even more growing from every joint. Additional stalks 
or tillers oi'ten start from tlie base of the eane, some of these 
connected with the original rootstock, depriving the parent stem 
of part of its proper nourishment ; others, with their own rootlets, 
exhausting the soil to no useful purpose, and in this manner being 
analogous to any " weeds." Adventitious roots form, sometimes, 
at one t)r more of the lower nodes. All tliese growths, when 
present in a considerable degree, detract from the value of the crop 
as a source of sugar by lowering the quality of the juice and inter- 
fering with the easy removal of tops and "■ trash." 

Cultivating before the plants have spread their roots far later- 
ally, and care to guard against disturbing them will reduce the 
tillering measurably ; and though we can not regulate the influence 
of weather, Ave can choose varieties and select canes for seed which 
show least propensity to offshoots. The summer of 1890 furnished 
in this nuitter an excellent, though unsought, test of the varieties 
grown here, for those which could undergo the incessant rains 
and murky weather of that season and still remain reasonably free 
from this defect are to be commended. Colman Cane and Ubehlana 
are two varieties which deserve special mention in this connec- 
tion. 

In the experimental culture of sorghum, preservation of desir- 
able strains is often made difficult or impossible from causes which 
injure the seed or aitect its vitality. Insects, blight, and the influ- 
ence of unfavorable weather are the chief factors in this ; and since 
the number of canes grown for selection purposes is necessarily 
limited, and the varieties must be planted in isolated rows, tlie 
damage is generally considerable when it occurs, and not many 
canes escape. Se[)aration of such plots from surrounding crops 
increases liability to injury from insects especially, all varieties 
sutiering equally in this. Blight, rust, or mildew is frequent in 
wet or cloudy seasons, but seems to attack the seed of some varie- 
ties more than that of others equally exposed, the worst sufterers 
among the Calumet [»lots having been those of White India, of 
which not one reliable seed-head was produced in 1890, though 
very little seed of other sorts was lost through this cause in either 
year. 

Another and widely felt result of wet weather, during the har- 
vest of 1890, was a general sprouting which took place among 



41 

tlie seed wliile yet on tlie lieads, all which had so geniiiiiated, of 
course being utterly valueless for planting. Least sprouting of 
the seed took place with Colman Cane, Ubehlana, Link's Hybrid, 
Undendebule and Planter's Friend, and from Early Orange, of 
three }>lantings, most of the seed was saved in apparently good 
condition. Sorghum shares all these liabilities to damage in com- 
mon with most otlier cereals, and allusion i-s made to them chietly 
to point out some of the ol)Stacles which must be met in the 
attempt to develop the plant by seed selection. 

(^uite aside from the mischief done by insects to the seed while 
still in the field, another and more insidious— because often un- 
noticed — danger springs from the hatching of eggs ("nits") of 
weevils and other pests, which are put away with the selecte<l 
seed. These are often so numerous that a packet left undisturbed 
for a few weeks may be found, when opened, alive with them. 
Several species of small beetles, and a few of the smaller Lepidoii- 
tera breed numerously in the seed-heads of the sorghum grown 
here; and being aware of this, all the seed intended to be pre- 
served has been packed in closely stoppered glass bottles or tight 
metal cans, in some cases after mixing i>lentifully witli Persian 
insect powder. About two weeks after the seed-selection work 
had ended, on examination of one of the larger packages of seed, 
Avhich contained a large quantit}' of the insect powder, it was found 
infested with small beetles and their grubs, in lively health, and 
several small moths fluttered weakly about or clung to the sides 
of the can. Furtlier search revealed the fact that almost every 
lot of seed was in a similar condition. An ap[)lication of ether 
was made experimental!}', and a small quantity drop})ed into each 
packet, when all were tightl}' closed again, packed away, and n(»t 
again looked into during the busy months of tlie "grinding" 
which then followed. Five months later another examination of 
the stock of seed was made, and in the large can referred to (con- 
taining a general selection of seed from Colman Cane) was found 
another and even larger throng of beetles, if anything more 
active than before, and the same was found to be the discour- 
aging state of things in nearly the whole stock, excepting among 
the smaller packets of seed from single heads, which had been 
more readily cleaned when first packed. 

These facts suggest the thought that, should sorglium l)ecome 
a recognized sugar crop in Louisiana, the business of raising high 



42 

class seed would probably be better U'ft to otbers than tlie sugar- 
growers, for special experience, watchfulness and care that few 
could find time to give are required I))' the work. Better success, 
also, might be met by importing seed for this cro[> from secti(uis 
Avhere less difficulty is encountered from the m3'riads of destructive 
insects which swarm here and make the sorghum-lield their home, 
infesting the seed-heads, depositing their eggs among them and 
making it imperative to take every precaution and keep continual 
watch, which may even then be unavailing to preserve the gath- 
ered seed. Suitable varieties of sorghum being once established, 
these could be preserved and propagated at some tit Louisiana 
station, and suffit-ient seed sent elsewhere each year — say, to Kan- 
sas — where might be grown the larger supply required for the 
next year's crop here, thus keeping the variety acclimatized to 
Louisiana, while raising the field seed elsewhere, with less risk of 
its failing to germinate when planted. 

TIME FOR PLANTING. 

Once successful in finding or originating a protitable variety of 
sorghum cane for the sugar plantations of Louisiana, it then l)c- 
comes essential to learn what is the best time to plant it in order 
that the crop may be mature in time to l)e liarvested and gotten 
entirely out of the way before the later tropical cane needs atten- 
tion. Varieties which have thus far done best here have required 
about one hundred and twent}^ days' growth from the time of seed- 
ing to that of maturity ; and as an auxiliar}^ crop would best be 
" milled'' during the six or seven weeks prior to October 15tli. it 
seems that a first planting made about May 1st, succeeded by a 
smaller one two weeks later, would, with ordinarily good weather, 
insure ripe cane throughout su(;h a season. 

Separate plantings made at Calumet with several varieties failed 
to throw the lioped for light upon this (question, owing to the ab- 
normal grow^tli induced by an untoward season ; a like trial an- 
otlier year may succeed better, and will probably be made. 

STABILITY AND VARIABILITY OF SORGHUM. 

In a sugar-producing plant it is an important requirement that 
when its maximum content of sugar has been reached, this shall 
be sustained for a reasonable i)eriod, and not too rapidl}' decline: 



-^5 

for it is not usiuilly profitable to harvest a crop until its liigliest 
value can be realized. Sorgliiim, it has quite often been said, be- 
gins to fall off very soon in sugar and purity after its niaxinuuu 
has been attained, but many varieties tried on this plantation have, 
on the contrary, continued to show a high juice analysis tor [)eriods 
ranging from twenty to thirty days. In 1880, for example, when 
the dry weather of the later autumn favored a slow and regular 
development, Link's Hybrid furnished, during one month, eanos 
yielding uniformly above fourteen ]»er cent, sucrose with a purity 
averaging seventy-live per cent, and over; and during 1890. though 
suckering badly from the damp, hot season, ecpuiUy good cane of 
the same variety was found by analj'sis throughout the period ex- 
tending from July 21st to August 18th, and other varieties did as 
well as this. 

The wide diflerence in sugar content and other (pialities noted 
among single canes grown from seed of the same i)arent stalk 
under (apparently) identical conditions, has been often remarked 
by those who liave made sorghum a subject of experiment. When 
investigating the merits and failings of any plant proposed as an 
adjunct to or substitute for tropical cane, it is natural that the 
latter should l)e made the standard of comparison. With this in 
view, a number of analyses have been made in the course of the 
Calumet experiments, liaving for their object a determination and 
comparison of the variation in juice-constituents of sorghum and 
ordinary Louisiana cane, one stalk with another. 

In 1889 this subject could not be given as much attention as it 
deserved. Ten adjacent stalks of Link's Hybrid sorghum were 
cut and analyzed separately, and ten stalks of -'Purple"" and 
" Ribbon " cane (mixed) were taken from the field and treated in 
like manner on the same date. The result of this experiment is 
shown in full in Table YT.,and from the figures there given it 
w^ould seem that the variation among the stalks of tropical cane is 
the greater. A single experiment of this sort, however, on so few 
canes, is far from conclusive. 

A more extensive experiment of the same character was made 
in 1890, and a comparison was made of two varieties of sorghum, 
with each other and with tropical cane: the degree of variation is 
expressed in form of percentage, from which the general deduction 
may be made that variability (stalk with stalk) is a trait shaa-ed in 
nearly equal degree by sorghum and its more prosperous relative. 



44 

Tlie latter experiment is given in Tal)le VII. Table VI., also, 
strikingl}' illustrates the ditt'erence of -the two plants in content of 
non-sugar, the great excess of this group of bodies in the sorghum 
cane juice appearing on comparison of the two "non-sugar" col- 
umns, and serving to accentuate what is hiter said concerning their 
intluence and composition. 

('oiiiparisoii Suriilanii tnni Trojiinil Cimi' as in Viiriuliiliiii .\iiioikj Uiiscli'rieil Single 

Sidlks „f Karl,. 

Jiutli Grown Upon Caliinict Plantation, Lonisiana, Sea.son of 1889. 





80R(;1IL':M — LINK'S H VI? Kill. 




SIM 


;ar cane- 


-"PI l!l 


LE' AND " lilBBON." 


Ten 


(1(1) Adjacent Ciines t 
NnVMirilie 


alien fro 
■ 4, iss'.p 


in till' r<!l 


Ml- row, 


Tci 

i 


;iil) Adjari-i 


It Canc-s 
NoveinlM 


taken fr 
r 4, issr 


inn a sii 


gle low. 


Xo. 


Correrted 
Solids. 


Suci'ose. 


(iliKOse 


Xon- 
siigiir. 


E.\- 

pdiieiit. 


No. 


("oriectcd 
Solids. 


Sir- rose. 


Glucose 


Xoii- 
sngar. 


Ex- 
ponent. 


1 


22.20 


17.04 


0.71 


4.45 


76.75 


1 


15.67 


11.91 


1.82 


1.94 


76.00 


o 


21.89 


ic,.]8 


0.54 


4.67 


75.04 


, 2 


10.77 


13.91 


1.25 


1.61 


82.95 


o 


19.88 


i;].98 


0.03 


5.27 


70.32 


') 


15.17 


11.10 


2.16 


1.91 


73.10 


4 


21.85 


15.77 


0.05 


5.43 


72.18 


4 


13.10 


8.72 


2.26 


2.12 


06. ()4 





21.85 


10.25 


0.5:i 


5.07 


74.37 


5 


15.87 


12.64 


1.46 


1.77 


79.05 


« 


22.25 


10.70 


0. 73 


4.82 


75.05 


1) 


15.89 


12.64 


1.67 


1.58 


79.67 


7 


21. «8 


15.59 


0.62 


5.47 


71.91 


7 


13.83 


9.74 


2.28 


1.81 


70.64 


8 


21.4] 


15.81 


0.08 


4.92 


76.10 


8 


14.02 


10.98 


1.71 


1.93 


75.10 


'.) 


21.08 


10.50 


0.08 


4.50 


73.84 


9 


15.53 


12.32 


1.49 


1.72 


79.33 


10 


21.18 


15 53 






73.32 


10 


15.00 


11.41 


1.90 


1.75 














Av 


3rages . . 


15.94 


0.64 


4.90 


74.00 


Av( 


n-ages . . 


11.54 


1.80 


1.81 


76.17 



diekek'ence between exthemes. 




Tioiiical 
Cane. 



Solids . 
Sucrose . 
Glucose . 
Non-sugui 
Exponent 



3.67 
3.92 
1.03 
0.54 
16.31 



H 
H 

\> 




46 



COMPARISON OF LARGE AND SMALL CANES, 
AND OF CANES WITH LARGE AND 
SMALL SEED-HEADS. 

On August 1, 1(S90, thirty canes of Link's Hybrid were cut, 
selecting tlio largest stalks, and the next day thirty of the smallest 
from the same plot. The canes were ground singly, and their 
juices tested by the Brix spindle, the twelve samples giving the 
highest per cent, solids l)eing analyzed in case of eacli set. Four 
of the large and two of the small canes gave juices containing 
sucrose at or al)ove sixteen per cent. 

LARGE AND SMALL CANES, AVERAGE. 





LARGE 

CANES. 


SMALL 

CANES. 

20.91 
1.').29 
73.12 


Solids . . 


. . . 20 72 


Sucrose . . . . 
Purity 


. . . l.-).7'.i 
. . . 76.21 



As the above figures show, the choice is in favor of the larger 
oanes. The general work of the season, however, indicates that 
no prediction can be safel}- made which is based on the size of 
stalk, always provided that their stage of growth is the same, and 
that canes so compared are of varieties not too widely differing 
in the period required to attain maturity. 

At the same time with the preceding experiment, samples were 
drawn from a plot of Colman Cane selecting twenty each of canes 
with respectively the largest and smallest seed-heads to be found. 
Of the canes with largest heads, ten gave juices passing the arbi- 
trary Brix te-st, and in like manner nine samples of juice were 
selected from the eanes with the smallest heads. Eight of these 
juices, in each set, were found to contain sucrose sixteen per cent, 
or over. 

LARGE AND SMALL SEED-HEADS, AVERAGE. 





LAKUK SMALL 
HEADS. ' HEADS. 


Solids 

Sucrose 

I'uritv 


20.90 21.33 

1C.22 16.28 
77.61 76.32 



47 

T\\c (littereiice in tlie analyses is not sufiiciont to demonstrate 
tliat the size of the seed-head is any index of the (jnality of the 
jniee in tlie cane. 

T^^BXjE "VIII. 

Hn Auiiii>t :l (IS'.K)). riot No. 1 of Earlv Oriiiiuv l>cini;- u-clcss i\>v further seed 
x'lfttiiui, the top- of oiie-li:ilf tile caiies Vet standing were removed, and the I'eiuainder 
of tlie ])lot left intact. Analyses were made at weekiy intiTvals. takini;- a like numlier 
of eanes from thi' ••'ropiied" and •■ Untopped "' pavt> of the plot to maki^ eoin- 
jiarison. 

The tigures olitaineil indicate that no marked ditterence is produced in canes whicdi 
have attained maturity and ripened tlieir seed. That top)iin!;- vei-y immature canes 
would have l)ent'ticial intluenee is, to say the least, very douhtfuk as the secondary 
head> which Mould incvitahly he ]iut forth to rt'phicc the loss miii-ht hasten the 
deterioration of >uch c;ine, 

35rOT TOIPIPEID. 







-• 


^ 


. 




j 




■- 


— .£ 


r 


> 


' 


r _, 


— - 




*- r 


— 


■*- -'i 
























— 


z = 


- 


-_ 


:, z 


'-, 


1. ^ 


i "■ 


,* X 


y — " 










- ■/. 


































■^6 


-- • 


u.:;.-) 


^ 


" 


5 


a,^ 


"^ 


i-J. 


A 11 li list tj 


10 


lil.'.t.j 


;i.'.« 


2.111 


]4.r.;i 


"AJii) 


24.:!0 


.4 


AiiKUst \> 


1(1 


l'.l.(l.-| 


14.1". 


71. 27 


1..-.2 


10.74 


:!.38 


2:1.88 


IS7 


Anf-iist r.i 


ir. 


1.S.22 


t:!.i"i 


71.:;.:. 


1 .20 


!l.i»2 


;i.oy 


:3u.2;! 


nij 


August 25 


ir. 


17.■2^2 


12.O0 


72. r.!) 


.'JT 


7.70 


3.75 


.30.(HI 


Ave 




iV) 


is.r.i 


i:i..".ii 


72..-.1 • 


1.47 


10.80 


;!.G4 


26.00 



TOIPI^EX) ^^TJCS-TJST 3. 



•- 


:L 




_^ 


. 




.1 


1 






= 


~ ~ 




■^ 


Z z 


^. 


i£ 


JcE 


J- I 


= — 










^ -A 














- 


?.'Z 


■- 


u 


^ 


§ 


L'?, 


y. 


4.5 


.Vuffust 


10 


10.45 


i:i.oo 


71.41 


1.7:5 


12.45 


:5.82 


27.41 


.-.5 


August 12 


10 


10.05 


i:!.85 


72.05 


l.Ol 


11.62 


:5..50 


25.02 


Mi 


Aiifiiist 10 


15 


18.82 


i;i.(j5 


72..51 


i.:{l 


0..50 


:i.80 


28.28 


H7 


.Xiiiinst 25 


15 


15.02 


II.IKI 


70.42 


1.6:5 


14.82 


2.00 


27.18 


Ave 


■itjir .... 


m 


18.24 


i:i.lo 


71.82 


1.57 


11.90 


:i..57 


27.25 



YIELDS PER ACRE. 

In 1889 u few experiments were undertaken for the purpose of 
learning sometliing of the yield per acre of sorghum cane. This 
was done with the varieties (Early Orange Plot Xo. 2, Link's 
Ilyhrid Plot Xo. •> and Late Orange Plot JTo. »)) which were at 
that time most promising in the light of lahoratory and held 
work. Table IX. (chiefly the work of Mr. W. J. Thompson) is 
given below, showing the result: 

F'u'hl Ej-pcrlnieidK 'm Surnhuin, 1889-90. Yirldn per Acre. 



NUMI-Kit ('ANKi- 



Uute 

Weight of field cane. ll>s 

Weight of eleaii cane, ihs 

Weight of seed-heads and 15 in. stems, ll)s. . 

Weight of trash hy ditferenee, Ihs 

Weight of elean seed, Ihs 

Average weight of fi(dd cane, pei'eanc Ihs. 
Average weightof elean eane, )ier cane, Ihs. 
Average weight of seed-lieads and 15 in. 

stems. ))er eane, Ihs 

Average weight of trash, per cane, Ihs. . . 
Average weight of (dean seed, per eane, Ihs 



Solids, sjiindle 

Hiicrose, single polaiMzation 

Glucose 

Solids, not sugar 

Ash . . . . ■ 



not sugar 



Organic so 

Parity 

(tIucosc I'atio 

Availahle sugar (8.. l.MI.) per cent. . . . 

Average canes per acre 1 cane to I) in.. 

7 ft. rows, tons 

.Vverage canes i)er aci-e 1 cane to o in., 

4 ft. rows, tons . . . . 

Average tonnage field cane per acre, 1 cane 

to 3 in., 7 ft. row.s, field cane .... 
Average tonnage field cane per acre, 1 cane 

to 3 in., 4 ft. rows, field cane .... 
Average tonmige clean cane per acre, 1 cane 

to 3 in., 7 ft. rows, clean cane . . . . 
Average tonnage clean canepor aci-e, 1 cane 

to 3 in., 4 ft. rows, (dean can(^ .... 
Average clean .seed jit^r acre, 1 cane to 4 in., 

7 ft. rows, Ihs 

Average clean .seed }ier acre, 1 cane to 4 in.. 

4 ft. rows, lbs 

Available sugar per acre, 1 cane to 4 in., 

7 ft. rows, lbs 

Available sugar ])er acre. 1 cane to 4 in., 

4 ft. rows, lbs 

Availalile sugar )H'>- t<)n. clean cane, 7 ft. 

rows 

Available sugar jxm- ton, (dean cane. 4 ft. 

rows 



Oct. 23. 
18 



2.75 

0.933 

0.600 

0.100 



0. 



21.40 
16.30 

2.50 

2.00 

0.8024 

1 . 7976 
76.16 
15.33 
12.55 



43.560 



13.068 



2742.175 



209.83 



Oct. 23. 

32J 

22' 

3 

~\ 
2^5 
1.048 
0.71 

0.097 
0.241 



20.70 
16.44 

1.16 

3.10 

0.8876 

2.2124 
79.42 

7.05 
14.70 



43.560 



m . 50 



245.76 



Oct. 'I 
32 i 
21' 



1.0s>i 
0.70 



0.10 
0.283 



20.70 
16.44 

2.39 

1.87 

0.8470 

1 .0230 
.79.42 
14.53 



43.. "'(iO 



15.46 15.24 



5275.32 



244.24 



4!) 

Availal)K' sugar per aei'c and per ton is calculated on tlic basis 
ot" twelve }»er cent, tiber and ei^'lity-eiglit per cent, juice, and an 
extraction of ninety-six per cent, on tlie total juice, which diltu- 
sion gives in reasonably good practice. 

It is understood tliat an experiment on so snuiU a scale is not 
a fair one, but it is as close an a}>proximation as could l)e reached, 
and is of value in comparing one variety- with another. 

CHEMICAL STANDARDS IN SEED SELECTION. 

When a large number of canes have lieen analyzed, and the 
time arrives when selection must be made from among their seed- 
heads of those which it is desirable to save, tlie question arises 
as to what shall be retained and what rejected. To clioose the 
proper seed wouhl be quite a simple matter were hut one constit- 
uent — sucrose, for example — to be considered. In reality there 
are four — sucrose, purity, glucose and non-sugar — each of which 
should have due intluence upon tlie choice. Tlie ideal sugar plant 
would be one containing in its juice onl}^ sugar (sucrose) and 
water, and the neai'er a sorghum juice approximates in its analy- 
sis to this composition, the more valuable is it. We find our 
juice, however, to contain besides sucrose and water varying 
pro[)ortions of other substances, the best known of them being 
glucose, which, with numerous imperfectly understood organic 
bodies (starch, organic acids, gums, etc., collectively termed " or- 
ganic non-sugars") form a large part of the solids, and injure the 
(piality of the juice. 

Ileuce j)iirif)/ of J nice (per cent, ratio of suci'ose to total solids) 
should be one of the chief standards. High purity and high 
eucrose content are usually, though not invariably, co-existent, 
and it seems the best plan to make the first selections upon purit}^ 
as a basis. Having done this, the majoritj^ of tlie seed-heads have 
been eliminated, and there remains a comparatively small number 
derived from canes of high and nearly equal purity of juice and 
sucrose content, from which it now remains to select a few which 
shall V)e representative of the highest type of excellence. At this 
stage it seems to l)e the common practice to make tlie final selec- 
tion from tlie heads representing canes of lowest per cent, glucose, 
but during work hei'e the belief has been reached that this pro- 
cedure is not the best. Analyses indicate that for approximately 



50 

(•((iial jmi'ity, tlic /iiiicf coiilainiiii;' mosl glucose, lins hdsl of tlic 
liiiijliU' ohjcclioiiabK' stardiy and ornminv coiistitucnts, and the 
actual work of (■alunict factory for tlic jiast three years lias con- 
clusively i>roven tliat the presence of glucose exerts not nearly so 
great an influence in retarding or preventing crystallization as is 
generally sn[)posed to be the case. 

For tlio reasons wliicb have been outlined, it lias been decided 
to hereafter ignore the gbicose, and base selection u})on the fol- 
lowing characters: high pnri/>/, h/</h sucrose^ loir inni-sin/ar. 

PRELIMINARY SELECTION BY THE SPINDLE. 

When selectino; the best individual canes of any variety of 
sorghum for the purpose of })reserving seed of high quality, it 
has; been tlie practice, both at Sterling and at Calumet, to cut 
from the apparently ripest and healthiest stalks a convenient 
(juantity for the day's analyses, and to grind these, one by one, 
placing each seed-head with its corresponding juice sample; then, 
floating a Brix spindle in each juice, to select all samples giving 
a reading above some arbitrary- standard for further examination, 
and preserving the lieads belonging with these, to reject the bal- 
ance as of inferior worth. It is generally true that with normal 
and healthy canes this method retains the samples with highest 
sucrose content, but the question has been raised Avhether, in thus 
rejecting juices with lower solids and sucrose, we do not often 
lose some possessing superior purity. The result of many analy- 
ses indicates that a considerable number of juices of high purity, 
but with a low degree Brix, are excluded and the seed lost, 
while many with high degree Brix, but low purity, are retained 
for further and useless work by this procedure. For example, 
among a number of canes examined w^ith reference to this point, 
on September 1, 1890, the juice from each cane was analyzed, 
irrespective of the spindle reading. The lowest Brix reading 
obtained was 17.H8°; the purity of the juice giving this was found 
to be 75.22 per cent. The highest Brix, 20.28°, was that of a juice 
which, upon analysis, showed but 75.69 per cent. Preliminary 
selection based on the degree Brix would have rejected the for- 
mer and retained the latter, though the ditterence in purity was 
trifling, and such instances might be indeflnitely multiplied. But 
since the term "purity" expresses the ri\f\o ]>fr cent, of sucrose to 



51 

tlie total solids ot' a Jurh' or (»tliei- sui^'ar i)ro(lurt, then i^-iveii two 
juices with equal purity, but one of high and the other of low per 
cent, solids (Brix), the former would in any case be the one finally 
chosen, for it contains more sucrose for an equal quantity of cane 
or juice, with the collateral advantage of less water to be evapo- 
rated . 

Quite often juices with the same per cent, solids are found to 
vary from one to two or more per cent, in purity, and thus no 
reliable prediction can be nuide of the latter from the Brix indi- 
cation, though, in general, purity, within rather uncertain limits, 
is in direct proportion to the amount of solids. The ordinary 
spindle selection is in the long run not far astray, and is a fair, 
though rough, means of obtaining seed of good quality when the 
knowledge or appliances for more complete polariscopic analysis 
is not at hand. Though by use of the spindle we may lose some 
few desirable canes in the preliminary selection, yet there is 
avoided the w^aste of time and the useless analytical w^ork which 
otherwise would be incurred. 

TOTAL SOLIDS BY THE BRIX SPINDLE AND BY 

DRYING. 

Purity has been calculated as usual in the work of the Calumet 
laboratory on the per cent, solids obtained by correcting for 
temperature the reading of the Brix spindle. To find approx- 
imately the error of this method, some forty determinations of the 
actual solids of the juice were made by drying samples (2 grammes) 
of juice to constant weight in the water-oven at 98° C, the sample 
being contained in a flat, shallow i)latinum dish, and evaporated 
without the use of sand or other accessory. The difference be- 
tween the actual solids so determined and the corrected Brix was 
quite variable, but the latter was nearly always much too high, 
ranging from 0.1 to 0.8 and averaging 0.42. The inconstant 
amount of difference is chiefly due to the fact that the relative 
proportions of the variolis bodies not sucrose, with their varying 
specific gravity, are not always the same. 

Were the purity calculated on tlie trne solids, it would be uni- 
forndy and considerably higher, giving sorghum a l)etter recoi'd 
than herein appears. 



52 

MARC. 

Much time was devoted to estimation of mare, ?'. f., solids of 
the cane not soluble in water, in several varieties of the 1890 sor- 
ghum, to determine which, if any of them, was least woody, and 
to compare the general result with sugar cane. It is regretted 
that no data could be obtained for 1889, as that season was very 
dry throughout the period of growth, and interesting comparison 
could be made with this jear's figures, obtained in a wet time. 
The accejited opinion seems to ])e that canes are more or less 
woody as their growth is made in dry or in wet weather. The 
analyses given in Table X. indicate that the marc varies in an 
inverse ratio to the diameter of the stalk, and it seems probable 
that of two plantings of a variety of sorghum, one having wet 
and the other dry weather, the former, if of lower marc, will be 
so because of its larger canes rather than of any change in its 
juice-composition, for it appears to be very unlikely that any plant 
simply because excess of water is su[)plied to it, will take u[i 
of that element more than its normal functions require. Com- 
})arison of the average marc of Undendebule, the slenderest of the 
season's canes, with that of Fbehlana, the stockiest, will illustrate 
this influence of size. 

Wide ditference of Hbre (marc) in samples from the same plot 
were frequent, owing to irregularity in the size of canes growing- 
side by side. The necessity for using the healthiest canes for seed 
selection often prevented taking fair samples for marc determina- 
tion, but the best was done that could be under the circumstances; 
and as all plots were cut into for seed selection to about the same 
degree, results are practically comparable, jilot with plot. 

The average percentage of marc on all the varieties exam- 
ined was 12.73, about three per cent, higher than the commoidy 
given figures for tropical cane. 







T^BLE 


2^. 








i^j^:rc 












Days 








A Hilly si > 


\ AIM i;tv. 


Date. 


Eroiii 


Prr ( V'llt . 


I'i'r < 'rut. 


KKMAltKS. 


Nmii'liiT. 






Plantiii-. 


:Mair. 


.Illirc. 




1 


Kiiily Oi'iiiiiir. 


.Iiilv lit. 


117 


l:!.7S 


Nil. 22 




•J 


Eiiil.v Oiiinjic 


Julv 111. 


117 


I2.S4 


S7.II1 




42 


Kiulv (Miiiifii'. 


Anil. li. 


l:i.-. 


II.. -.4 


SS.4I; 




A:\ 


Kiilly diiuijii'. 


An-, i:. 


l:;.-, 


ll.::i 


SS.IllI 




4.". 


Eui-ly (tiaiij;c. 


All-. (1. l:;.-| 


11.117 


ss.;!:i 




47 


Eiirly Oniiif;<'. 


An-. (1. 1 l:i.-> 


12. '.1:1 


S7.III 




i;'.i 


Karly Oniii.;ri'. 


Au-. 12. i Id'.l 


l:!..!7 


sil.il:! 




1(H 


Kiirly OiiiiiK''. 


An-. 22. 1 nil 


1 1 .22 


S.V.7.S 




122 


Early Oraiijii'. 


An-. 2li. ' 12:1 


111.11.-. 


sii.:i.-i 




l:ir, 


Eailv Oiaii^c. 


ri 


12.W 


s7.:i(l 




147 


Early Onmiic. 


Sept. 2. 1 i:i(i 


14.!l!l 


S."..lll 




171ii 


Early Oraii?;.'. 


Sept. l(i. ! 122 

1 


1 1 .:!4 


SN.Illl 






—A vera -f ..f 
Links Hvhri.l. 


Early Oraii-c . 
•hilv 21. ■ ll'.t 


12.:!(1 


S7.(l4 


' 


4 


1:1. '.12 


Ml. (IS 




S4 


Links Hvlirid. 


All-. IS. 1 1-17 


i.-..:;i 


S4.(lll 




11.-. 


Links llvbrid. 


An-. 24. 


121 


111.77 


S! 1.2:1 




12:! 


Link's llvlirid. 


All-. 21;. 


12:! 


11.7.-. 


SS,2.-, 




i:!7 


Links lIvlinM. 


An-. 211. 


1211 


12.r.:i 


S7.47 




]+s 


Links llyl.rid. 


ScjiV. 2. 


l:;ii 


I2.7!l 


S7.2I 






--A\rra-r (.1 
I'll.lvlj.li'lMllr. 


Links 
An-. l."i. 


llyl.rid . 


12.S.-I 


S7.1.-. 




;.-, 


144 


17.27 


S2.7:! 




,s:. 


l-ndciiilcl.iilc. 


Ans. I'-l. 


14M ' 14.;ill 


s.").7ii 




Kill 


rndciMlci.Ml,.. 


Aiiji. 22. 


llil ' l:!.lll 


sr,.s4 




124 


I'lKll'IMll'lHllr. 


An-. 2(). 


12.i 11. ill 


ss.iui 




i:!S 


rnil.'iMlclMilc. 


AU}.. 2!l. 


1211 ! l:i.(lll 


S(i.:i4 




Nil 


rn<l<>iHl('l>iil.'. 


Sept. 2. 


i:iii 


1 1.(111 


SS.lll 












.■<iiial!r-l caiir- ; cLriipiirc « ill. 




— Avciaiiv of 
rbclilaiia. 


T'ndi'iidc 
An-. l."i. 


link' . . 


i:i.r.7 


Kii.4:i 


rixdilana. 


7(> 


144 


111.11:. 


sii.:i.-, 




102 


n.i'lilaiia. 


An-. 21. 


l.-,li 


ll.:!2 


SS.IIS 










Larji'i'st raric--: ruin pa re will. 




-AM^rajivof 
Culiiian I'aui'. 


riadi 
.Uilv 2S. 


laiia . . 
1211 


111.1)11 


sy.iii 


rndciid.dMilc. 


211 


12.1o 


S7..sr. 




lio 


(•(iliiiaii Cane. 


Ansi. 11. 


140 


i:!.17 


su.sri 






Ko.l l.ilM.riaii. 


I'cdiMan 


CalH' . . 


12.(111 


S7.:i4 




-,-, 


Am.^. 111. |:;:i 


lii.lMl 


SI 1.04 


En. in I'l. It N... .".A. 


."ki 


lied Lilifriaii. 


.Vim. 10. \,.l kUMun lil..">4 


s:!.4(i 


Ei.'l.l siir-lniiii 1 fc.ra^i' rni|i 1. 


'.IS 


l^lantci's iMJi'iid. 


An-. 211. I4!i l:!.l!i 


SIl.Sl 






Tiital avcrajic . 


12.7:! 







STARCH AND_OTHER NON-S UGARS. 

To the bodies iieitlier siierose noi' glucose, wliicli form u part of 
the solids in the juice of sorglmiu caiie and other sugar plants, the 
name "non-sugar"' may be a[>propriately given, their percentage, 
of course, being found l)y subtracting the sum of sucrose and glu- 



54 



cose from the total solids. The presence in large [iroportion of" 
tliese iiou-sugars is perhaps the most discouraging ohstacle, from 
the chemical standpoint, to the economic extraction of the con- 
tained sugar from sorghum Juice, for these, consisting as they do 
chieliy of gum-like suhstances and organic acids, act chemically 
hy restraining from crystallization and inverting the sucrose, as 
well as mechanicall}' hy making pro[)er j.>urging of the masse ciiltes 
very difficult. 

The inorganic portion of non-sugar, which consists of silica, 
}>ota8h and lime salts, etc., is not very great and may he disre- 
garded ; hut the orr/anic portion is very harmful, and a successful 
method for its removal by clarification is yet to he discovered. '^' 
Before intelligent investigation in this direction is practicable, 
knowledge must be acquired of the chemical nature and properties 
of the bodies with which we have to deal. Many analyses have 
been made at different times and in various places, through which 
man}' of the constituents of sorghum juice have been separated 
and recognized, but very many are still imperfectly or not at all 
identified. Among other organic substances, the presence of malic, 
tartaric and citric acids, together with starch, has been fully estab- 
lished, the two former and the latter of these existing in consider- 
able quantity. Tartaric and citric acids are eliminated (j[uite per- 
fectly by lime as employed in ordinary clarification, and malic acid 
perhaps as well. Of all tlie bodies mentioned, however, starch is 
without doubt the worst in its ett'ects. In the mill-juice of all 
varieties of sorghum examined in this laboratory, this substance 
has been found in ({uantity, occurring as a grayish-white, creamy 
sediment at the bottom of vessels in whicli raw juice has stood 
aside for an hour or so. By washing and decanting, about five 
grammes of pure white starch were on one occasion obtained from 
about as many litres of juice, a very considerable part of the origi- 
nal amount being lost in the eifort to separate the associated impu- 
rities. 

All milling processes will extract starch from sorghum cane, and 
the more perfect the mill, the greater the amount of it, for it exists 



■■ Ncri'K. — .siiUT tlir fiirctioiiiL:,' \\;i> written, a iiirtlmil lia> hern )ii-(i|i<)>(m1 Iiv Dr. 11. 
W. Wiley, of til.' I'liited States I )e|)ai-| iiielit nt' .Vnriellltiire. fur the ivinoval (ifstareli 
ami iiuiii fVuiii >()rj;luiiii juiees liy a elai'ilieatidii in wliicli iirecipitat ion with alcohnl is 
llie iinpiirtant I'eatui'e. 'Phis uiav sddii he trieil oii an indiislrial scale, and it>sueeess 
means a new iniinilse tn tin' snru'lnnn sui;'ar industi'v. 



ill I lie stalk in tlu' conditioii of niiniitc imhcddcd oTaindcs, and in 
proportion as tiic cane is nioix' tlioroui;-ldy disintegrated, more 
starcli-graiiis are freed to be washed out hy tlie jniee. When onee 
introduced, stareli ean not he separated from tlie raw juiee except 
possibl}' b\' filtration (scarcely practicable), or by allowing the juice 
to stand until the starch has subsided, which lattei- method avouUI 
render loss by fermentation certain. 

Starch, suspended in the raw mill-juice as exceedingly tine, in- 
soluble granules, becomes ^ohihlc as soon as the temperature is 
raised to 50° V. (167° V. ) during the ensuing clarification, for at this 
temperature the granules swell, their enveloi)es rupture and the 
contents are discharged as a pasty mass whicli afterward remains 
in solution at all common tem[>eratures, and no means for its }>re- 
cipitation is known which can be employed in the sugarhouse. 
Part of the now soluble starch, perhaps all of it, is converted to 
(lexfriyt by the lime of the clarifier and by the continued boiling of 
subsequent processes, showing itself finally in the centrifugal as a 
heavy, clinging gum, w^hich obstructs the meshes of the wire-cloth 
and renders purging (separation' of the molasses) almost and often 
altogetlier impossible. 

Diffusion has therefore been found the l)est means of extracting 
the juice from sorghum cane, quite aside from the superior com- 
pleteness of this process over milling. The process of comminut- 
ing meclianically ruptures fewer of the vegetable cells and there- 
fore frees fewer of the included starch granules than mill crushing, 
and what remains is enclosed by unbroken cellular tissue; starcli, 
being colloidal or gum-like, is not osmosed by water passed over 
the chips. Again, such starch grains as are freed to be carried by 
the current of juice from one cell to the next, throngh the battery, 
will be partially filtered out by entanglement among the chips 
through which it passes, and what p)asses on from one cell will tlius 
be more or less completely removed in the next, and so on, a juice 
finall}^ leaving the battery which contains but little more starch 
than what is washed from the chips of the last cell in the series. 

But in diffusion as ordinarily emplo3'ed with cane, an element 
is introduced which luis not been taken into account in the pre- 
vious paragraph — that is to say, the fcniperature at which the 
battery is operated ; for, as has been said, the insoluble granular 
form of starch changes and becomes pasty and soluble at 50° C, 
not to be after^vard removed by means of filtration. With the 



starcli whicli is still L'licloscd in tlm cclliihii- striuiliirc of the chips, 
this is not so ini[)oi"tiuil ; Init when it is lejili/.ed tliatin eucheell ot" 
cliips there existent und torn snrtaees aggregating many thousand 
s(|uare feet in extent, stuchled with liall-ind>e(hled starcli grains, it 
is plain that, as soon as tlie teniperatui-e mentioned is reached, 
there become soluble, and tlius go into the juice immediately, not 
only tlie already' suspende<l grains, but immense numbers wliicli 
would otherwise not be dislodged at all from the chips — all this 
gum thenceforth not to l)e removed in any economical manner yet 
known. Dift'usion at a lower tiunperature, witli larger cells, liner 
chips and higher dilution, could be })racticed without such conver- 
sion becoming serious, and at little loss of time. 

It has been claimed that purer juices are obtained l)y hot than 
by cohl diffusion, this being attributed to the fact that high tempera- 
tures coagulate, and thus cause the chips to entangle and retain 
the albuminoids present. These bodies, however, it seems not 
essential to leave behind in the battery, for they can l)e removed 
by the succeeding clarification. It is surely worse to have a juice 
with (say) purity of 75 per cent, in'which the non-sugars are gums, 
than one with a purity perhaps 8 per cent, lower, but Avith non- 
sugars consisting chiefly of albuminoid l)odies amenable to the 
ordinary lime clarification. 



CONCLUSIONS. 

From the two years" cultural experiments, made during seasons 
of diametrically opposite character, it seems reasonable to conclude 
that: (].) Several varieties exist which, from both the agricultural 
and manufacturing points of view, alread}' promise to answer the 
requirements of a profitable supplemental sugar crop on the tropi- 
cal cane plantations of Louisiana, and that, therefore, it is wise 
that the experiment should be continued. (2.) The adverse cli- 
matic conditions of 1890 considered, progress has been made in 
the improvement of several of the better varieties by seed selection 
and otherwise, which, it is fair to anticipate, will become more 
pronounced with fui-ther effort under more favorable conditions. 
(o.) The iirincipal difficulties attending the improvement of varie- 
ties in Louisiana by seed selections are (a) the difficulty of protect- 
ing seed from insects, sprouting, etc. ; (/>) the considerable cost of 



o< 



the analytical work which such selection involves. (4.) DitTusioii 
or some analoo-ous process is al)solLitely necessary, instead of the 
cane-mill, for the extraction of its juices when the latter are to be 
worked for sugar. {■).) Tlie extraction should be carried on at a 
temperature below 50° C. The marc is too liio;h to permit of 
reasonably good extractive results, even from the repeated crusli- 
ings of the Calumet 8-roller mill, and juices so secured will fail to 
produce sugar in paying quantities, owing to the presence of starch, 
gums, etc., consequent upon the grinding process. (6.) Improve- 
ment in the purity of the juices is of more economic importance 
for the present than any mere increase of the sugar content with- 
out such increased purity. (7.) Seed-selection work should be 
confined as strictly as may be to the best varieties already possessed, 
and propagation from single heads followed without deviation. 

The conclusion tliat any variety of the sorglium cane promises 
to become an economic source of commercial sugar, esjjecially in 
Louisiana, may not appear warranted by the repeated failures to 
produce sugar from it with profit elsewhere. In tlie following 
table, Xo. XI., is given, to a close approximation, the average com- 
position of Calumet sorghum juice for several leading varieties, 
for the years 1889 and 1890 : 

Summarv of all average analyses of six varietios (1889-90). 



VARIETY. 



Solids. 



Sucrose. 



Purity. 



Early Orange . . 
Late Orange . . 
Inipmved Orange 
Link's Hybrid . 
Ciilinan Cane . . 
Undendelnile . . 



18.50 
18.28 
19.17 
19.75 
•20.]', 
19 .')fi 



Average 



19.23 



13.38 
13.43 
14.40 
14.27 
15.47 
14.(18 

14.2(5 



72.05 
73.67 
75.12 

72.25 
7C..77 
74.79 



Glucose. 



1.93 
2.24 
2.12 
1.10 
. ()8 



Noil -sugar. 



3.24 
2.-56 
2.65 
4.38 
4.05 
4.15 



r4.15 



1.47 



3.. 50 



A comparison of this table with the next, which gives, approxi- 
mately, the average analysis of sorghum juices actually worked 
for sugar at Xorthern factories, does much to explain away past 
manufacturing failures elsewhere and to strengthen the ho})eful 
conclusion which the work here appears for the present to sanc- 
tion, although the uncertainty of any conclusion, based upon the 
comparison of siuall plots with extensive fields, is recognized. 



58 

The conclusion is not yet warranted that sorghnm, as a source 
of sugar, can ever attain in Louisiana tlio excellence possible to 
it in Kansas, or that it can ever rival the tropical cane now grown 
in the former State. A (.•oni})arison of the analyses and actuall}-- 
obtained yields, recorded in Tables XI. and XII., indicates the 
necessity for vast improvement in the purity, even of Calumet 
sorghum juices, as exhibited in Table XI., before these can claim 
equality with tropical cane juices. The soi'ghum is at further dis- 
advantage owing to the quality of the impurities contained in its 
juices, in the lighter tonnage produced on given areas ot land, and 
in its smaller percentage of contained juice. The superior amount 
of sucrose in its juice counts for nothing so long as it remains 
unavailable in manufacture. 

But although it is not likely soon to become intrinsically so 
valuable a source of commercial sugar to the Louisiana planter as 
his present cane, and although it may never attain the excellence 
in Louisiana possible to it in Kansas, it must not be forgotten that 
it need not become such to be equally profitable. Fixed charges 
on the manufacturing plant and farm equipment, such as interest, 
depreciation, taxes and insurance, salaries of overseers, clerks, 
engineers, chemists and others employed by the year and the 
like, all now and hereafter necessary to the production of sugar 
from the tropical cane, will continue to be charged to this only. 
Free from these, which amount to perhaps one-third of the total 
expense account on the larger plantations, sorghum enters the 
cane fields at an immense advantage. To this must be added the 
advantage accruing from a propagation by seed over that by cnttivys, 
which should reduce the expenses of planting alone by from fifteen 
to eighteen dollars per acre. 

This report may fitl}' close with the summary presented in 
Table XIII. , which sliows the analyses and yields of sugar, per ton, 
obtained with Louisiana trc^pical cane juices, from 1884 to 1890, 
inclusive, as given in various puldished reports, and the compari- 
son of this with Table XII. will prove interesting. Both these 
tables are the result of lal)()riou8 and careful reviews made by 
Mr. W. J. Thompson, wliose deep interest and material achieve- 
ments in advanciuii; the sugar industry are well kno^\•ll. 



Arcrdije (ktntpa 1(111 AiKili/.fcs of Loin.':iana 



1884 
ISSfi 
l.S8(i 
1887 
1887 
1887 
1887 
1887 
1887 
1887 
1887 
1888 
1888 
1888 
1888 
188S 

1888 
1888 
1888 
188! I 
1881t 
1880 
1880 
188! I 
ISS'.i 
18S'.i 
l.s.sli 
188'. I 
18! II I 
18!M) 
ISttO 



First Kiiii 
Sci-oiiil Kuii 
Thinl Klin 
Konitli Kiiii 
Fifth Kuii . 



Masiioliii 
JVIiiaiii>li:« 

Magnolia 
IMasiii>lia 
IMayiKilia 
Masrnolia 
Jlaynolia 
?ray,-iiiilia 
Ma-n.ilia 

Evan Hall 

Bell.' Allianr,. .... 

Magnolia 

Magnolia 

Des LigiU'S (last liallCt 
Calnnift, Rattoon Cro]. 
Oalnniet. Plant I'mii . 



Evan Hall 

Belle Allianrr . . . . 

Souvenir 

aiagnolia 

Calumet, Hattoon Crop 
(!aluniet. Plant ( loji . 

Evan Hall 

Belle Allianei' . . 

Souvenir 

New Hope 



Belle T( 



lH.lo 

l."i.(l8 
lli.l."i 
l(>.:i7 
l.").li:{ 
U.!I8 
l:i.88 
l(i.7!l 
lll.Gli 
U..")4 
14.21 
Hi. 411 
17.">ll 

l."i,.S(l 

!(;.:« 
li;.:ili 



I'alo Alto 

Calumet. Total Crop 
Caft'ery Central. Total Cr 
Willswfxxl, Messrs. Seliinidt * Zleglei 



Average, 1884 to l.S!)(i, iiielnsivc 



1.").II7 
l(i.:!(l 
].">.!>:! 
l.").(i(l 
10.::!!l 
1.-...V2 
1.">.8!I 
1(1.17 
l.-..4:i 
lli.27 
17.t)8 
15.4(1 
ir>.(il 
lfi.21 
1.-I.18 







c 






5 


X 

s5 


.| 


l-2.(i2 


(1.87 


2.(1(1 


78.14 


12.11 


1.(12 


2.(17 


7)1.(14 


1.J..-.1 


(l..5!l 


2.05 


8:i..5(l 


i:i.(i!i 


(1.77 


1.91 


8:i.48 


12.2(i 


(1.9!) 


1.78 


81.. 57 


l-2.ilil 


0.88 


1.49 


84. IS 


n.r>n 


0.78 


1.57 


8:!. 07 


14.(5(1 


0.4!) 


1.7(1 


8(1.9(1 


18.98 


(1.70 


1.98 


8:i.!)l 


n..">ii 


1.18 


1.8(1 


79.09 


11.(18 


1 .:!:! 


1.8(1 


77.29 


14.1(1 


(i..'>(i 


1.74 


.S5.97 


l.">.:!0 


0.(12 


1..58 


87.40 


l:">.84 


O.O.'i 


1.01 


87.(10 


i:;.78 


0.97 


i.r)7 


84.4:i 


i:i.8!i 


O.llo 


1 .55 


84.75 


11.711 


1.(19 


1..5!) 


78.2:! 


r.V',:', 


1.117 


l.:!0 


81.78 


12.. i2 


1.41 


1.7(1 


80.10 


12.7:^ 


0.90 


1.91 


81.(10 


i:!.4(i 


l.:i4 


1..59 


K2.10 


12.84 


1.00 


l.(J8 


K2.70 


12.4(1 


1.7(1 


1.(17 


7.S.4.S 


12.114 


1.9(1 


1.27 


no. 02 


12.(18 


1.58 


1.17 


81.!):! 


1:5.2:! 


1.(19 


l.:i5 


8 1.. -id 


14.27 


1.72 


1.(19 


80.(19 


12.:!7 


1.80 


1 .2:5 


80,:i4 


12.40 


1.4:i 


1.78 


79.45 


l:i..">(l 


1..57 


1.14 


K:i.2!l 


12.48 


l.:so 


1.40 


82.21 


1:!.(I2 


1.18 


1.(15 


82.14 



Bnl. 
Bui. 
Bui. 
Bui. 
Bui. 
Bui. 
Bui. 
Bnl. 
Bui. 
Rep<: 
l!ep, 
Bnl. 
Bui. 
Bui. 
Hill. 
Bui. 

K<.p. 
Uep. 
Hep- 
(i. L 
Bep, 
Be],, 

liepi 
Bep, 
Kep, 
Kep, 
Hep. 

i;,.p. 

Hep, 
He),, 
M. 1 



No. 5. 
No. 11, 
No. 15, 
No. 18, 
No. 17, 



No. 17, 
No. 17, 
No. 17, 
No. 17, 
rt L. A 
rt L. A 
No. 21, 
No. 21, 
No. 22, 
No. 2:^, 
No. 2:!, 
W. .1. T 
rt L. A 
rt I,. A 
It L. A 
. Spene. 
rt Iluhe 
irt Hnhe 
irt L. A. 
irt L. A. 
irt r,. A. 
irt L. A. 
irt r,. A. 
irt L. A. 
irf Huh. 
irt 1.. V, 
;inl. .1 



r. S. Dept. Ag] 
r. S. Dept. Agi 
r. S. Dept. Agi 
U. S. Dept. Ag 
v. S. Dept. Agi 
U. S. Dept. Ag! 
U. S. Dept. Agi 
U. S. Dept. Agi 
U. S. Dent. Ak-i 
, Beenel. 1887, i 
. Beenel, 1887, 1 
U. S. Dept. Ag 
U. S. Dept. Agi 
U. S. Dept. Ag] 
V. S. Dept. Agi 
r. S. Dept. Ag 
'liomiison . . 
. Beenel. elienii 
. Beenel, eliemi 
. Beenel. elienii 
■r. Lii. Plidilei; '. 
ert Eilson, eheii 
crt Edsou. (lien 
. liernel. eliemi 
. Beenel, eliemi 
. Beenel. eliemi 
. Beenel. eliemi 
. Beenel, eliemi 
. Beenel. eliemi 
rt Edson. elieii 
111 Tresekow. c 
mist. La. rhiiil 



Arrnigr ('a,Hj,aif/N Analyses of Sornhuu, Jnicr.s Worl;e,J af Son//nmi Sar/ar Faciones, Compiled fron, VanoHs PahUshaJ Reporis. 



1882 
18815 
188:5 
188:5 
188:5 
1884 
1885 
1885 
1885 
1885 
1886 
1886 
1886 
1886 
1886 
1886 

1887 

1887 

1888 

, 1888 

1888 

1889 

1889 

1889 
1889 
1889 



FACTOKY 



Rio Grande, N. J 

Wasliiiiiiton. I). C 

Hi.. (JraiiiU', N. .1 

Chainpai^ii, 111 

Hutcliiiisuu, Ka8 

Ilutcliiiison, Khs 

Fiaiikliii Sugar Co.. Ottawa. K 
Ottawa, Kas. First run . . . 
Ottawa, Kas. Second run . . 

Rio Grande, N. J 

Fort Scott, Kas. 
Fort Scott, Ka.s. 
Fort Scott, Kas. 
Fort Scott, Kas. 
Fort Scott, Kas. 
Fort Scott, Kas. 

Fort Scott, Kas. 



Before Oct. 1st . 
After Sept. :!()tli 
Before Oct. 1st . 
After Sept. :!Otli 
After Oct. 14th . 
Means of last three 



Rio Grande. N. J. 



Rio Grande, N. J. . . 
Couvvay Springs, Kas. 

Douglas, Kas 

Conway Springs, Kas. 

Attica, Kas 

Medicine Lodge, Kas. 

Meade, Kas 

Ness Citj', Kas. . . . 



Average, 1884 to 1889, inclusive 



1:5.20 
14.81 
i:5.6() 
14.50 
15.69 
15.:5(» 
15.07 
15,7(1 
14.62 
12.99 
17.56 
16.6(t 
15.6:5 
14.77 
1:5.17 
14.56 

16.14 



1( 
18 

17.0:5 



15.56 



11.11 

8..")8 

9.75 

7.78 

U.(l« 

10. .")0 

9.2:! 

10.25 
9.06 
8.9:i 

10.49 
8.70 
9.;i4 
7.74 
6.48 
7.85 

9.,54 

8.98 

8.2:3 
12.42 

9.88 
11.68 

11.59 

10.44 

10.61 

6.:54 



9.87 



4.08 



4.76 
:!.:!4 
4.10 
:i.04 
2.90 
2.69 

"4.01 
4.15 
:i.57 
:s.79 
;5.:!1 
;5.56 

:5.4o 
:5.24 

2'.6i 
:5.oi 
1.70 

1.72 

2.24 
:5.85 
5.51 



:!.:39 



2.15 



1.96 
1.27 
0.70 

2.87 
2.55 
2.87 

;5.06 
;5.75 
2.72 
:5!24 
:5.;58 
:5.15 

;5.20 
1.80 



4.:56 
4.00 
4.95 



:3.78 
:5.56 
4.73 



84.17 
60.40 
71.69 
.5:5.()() 
70.62 
68. (W 
()1 .25 
65.29 
61 .97 
68.75 
59.7:5 
52.41 
59.76 
52.40 
49.20 
.5: J. 90 

59.11 

64.05 

58.. 50 
6:5.84 
58.. -54 
6:5.72 

68.06 

6:5.66 
58.88 
:58.24 



3.08 61.16 



liKFKliKNCKS. 



15ul. N(i 
15m1. N( 
I5nl. N. 
Bui. Ni 
Bui. N< 
Bui. N( 
Bui. N( 
Hul. N( 
Bui. N( 



r. S.De 
r. S. l)e 
V . S. 1)1' 
r. S. J>e 
r. S. I)e 
r. S. I)e 
V . S. [)e 

r. s. i)c 

U. S. I»e 



Bui. No. 18, U. S. I)e 
Bui. No. 14, V. S. l)e 
Bui. No. 14. r. S. T)c 



Agrc. 
A lire. 
A lire. 
Agrc. 
Agrc. 
Agrc. 
Agrc. 
Agrc. 
Agrc. 
Agrc. 
Agrc. 
Agrc. 



p.Ofi.H 
1 



Bui. N<i. 14. V . S. Drpt. A- 



f Bui. No. 17. 

(Bui. No. 18, 

( Bui. No. 17, 

( Bui. No. 18, 

15ul. No. 20, 

Bui. No. 20, 

Bui. No. 20, 

Bui. No. 26, 

Bui. No. 2(i, 

Bui. No. 26, 
Bui. No. 26, 
Bui. No. 26, 



U. fs. Dept. Agrc. 
U. S. Dept. Agrc. 
U. S. Dept. Agrc. 
U. S. Dept. Agrc. 
IT. S-. Dept. Agrc. 
U.S. Dept. Agrc. 
U. S. De])t. Agrc. 
r. S. Dept. Agrc. 

I' . S. Dept. Agrc. 

I'. S. Dept. Agrc. 
V . S. Dei)t. Agrc. 
U. S. Dept. Agrc. 



p. :!l 

p. 1.-. 
pp. 8, 1 
p. 72 
pp. 21, 
I). 45 



p. ,n 

p. 75 

p". 8(1 

p. 82 



A.Hughes 



Kxtractiuii Apiiaratu> 



(dls . . . 
11 niacerat'i 



oil mill 
dl mill 
ill . . 



Mill of 3i 
Diftusi(ui , 
Douldenii 
Doulde mi 
Single 3-r( 
Single 3-i-( 
Douhl 

Dittusion 

Diffusion 

Mill, hagasse(litfus(M 

Dittusion 1 

Diffusion \ 

Dittusion ] 

Dittusion 1 

Dittusion f 

Ditt'usion J 

Diff"usion 

Hughes' open diffusion 

Hughes' open ditfusion 

Dittusion 

Hughes' open ditt'usion 
Dittusion 

Diffusion 

Dittusion 

Dittusion 

Diffusion 



41.60 



47.00 



95.00 



) 

j' 

21.6 

See Bui. No, 

18,U.S.Dep 

Agrc, p. 126 



.")2.S0 
26.20 



99.50 



l!i:.M.\l!l\S. 



Experiments hy Dr. H. W. Wiley. 

Cane injured by frost. 

Yield stated is that secured suliseijncnt to Septcmlici- 5tli. 

Experiments hy Dr. Wiley, two days following ice. 
Exiieriments hy Dr. Wiley, sevcTi days following ice. 
Yield hased on field cane, worked without toi)i)ing or cleaning. 
Based on samples of whole cane i)assed thro' experimental mill. 
Canes left too long cut. Experiments hy Dr. H. W. Wiley. 

Experiments hy Dr. Wiley, hased on fresh chip samples i)asse(l 
through experimental mill. Canes left too long cut. Analy- 
ses of material actually worke(l. 



Y'ield hased on clean caiu'. 15nl. No. 20, p. 82. 
Yield hased on clean cane. 15nl. No. 20, p. 97. 

Yield hased on clean cane. Bui. No. 26, p. 74. 
Two sugars. Seconds estimated. 



Arer<i(je Campaupi Analyses (>f Loinsunxi Cftnf J nice. Cv))ipUc(l F, 



lACToKV 



1884 

1885 
188(1 
1887 
1887 

1887 
1.SS7 

1SS7 

1887 
1887 
1887 
1888 
18SS 
1888 
1888 
188K 

1,S8S 
188h 
188S 
l8S'.t 
]8S'.t 
1880 
188'.l 
188',) 
18811 
1881 1 
iNSit 
I88'.t 
IS'.HI 
18'.l(t 
IS! Ml 



Magnolia 

JVIuffiioliii 

IMit};'iiolia 

Magnolia 

Muf^nolia, First llnii 

3Iaf>;ii<)lia, SccdihI Run 

Blaiiiiulia. TliinI Uiiii 

MiiHiiolia, Ki)ii!-tli Iviiii 

Magnolia, Filtli Run 

Kvaii Hall 

Hcllc AlliaiKM^ 

MaKiH'iia 

iManiuilia 

I>cs lni;iirs (last lialt'ul' ca in |iai,nn ) 

('aliiinct. Uattooii ('i(>i> 

(laliimct. IMaiit Croji 



Kvaii Hall 

1{('I1(! AlliaiHc 

Soil veil ir 

MasMolia 

Calumet, l{att(i(iii Ci-oi) 

Calumet, I'laiit ('nip 

Kvan Hall 

15<-lle Alliaiiee 

Sduveiiir 

New H()|ie 

Belle Terre 

I'al.) Alto 

Calumet, Total Crop 

Cuflerv Central, Total Crop . . . 
M'illswood, Messrs. Sehmidt A /ieiih 



Avemj!,e, 1884 to 1811(1. inclusive 



i:).()7 
l(i.:;(( 
l.").(;:j 
1. ■>.(;() 
IC).:^!) 
i:>.:)2 

l.'>.8!> 
1(1.17 
1.-..4:! 
1(l.-27 
17.(18 
l.").4(» 

i:).(il 

1(1.21 
1."..18 



12.(12 
12.11 

i:!.r,i 
i:5.()!) 
12.2(1 
12.(11 
11.5:! 
14.(1(1 
i:j.!i8 

11.5(1 
11. (IS 

14.1(1 
15.:)ii 
i:{.84 
i:;.7s 
i:!.s-i 

11.711 
l:!.:;:; 
12.52 
12.7:! 
i:!.4(i 
12.S4 
12.4(1 
12.1)4 
12.(18 
i:i.2:i 
14.27 
12.:i7 
12.4(1 
1 :'>..")( I 
12.48 



l:i.02 



(1.87 
1.02 
0.5!) 
0.77 
0.!)!) 
0.88 
0.78 
0.4!) 
0.70 
1.18 
1 .:!:! 
0.5(1 
0.(12 
(I.! (5 
0.117 
0.115 

1.(11) 
1.(17 
1.41 
0.0(1 

\:.'A 
1.00 

1.7(1 
1 .0(1 
1.58 
1.(1!) 
1.72 
1.80 
1.4:! 
1.57 
l.:!(i 



1.18 



2.(1(1 
2.(17 
2.05 
1.01 
1.78 
1.40 
1.57 
1.70 
1.08 
l.Sd 
l.SO 
1.74 
1.58 
1.01 
1.57 
1 .55 

1.50 

l.:!() 

1.70 

1.01 
1.5!) 
1.(18 
1.(17 
1.27 
1.17 
l.:i5 
1.(10 
1 .2:'. 
1.78 
1.14 
1.40 



1 .(15 



78.14 
7(1.(14 

8:!.5(1 
8:}.48 
81.57 
84.18 
8.{.(I7 
8(1.0(1 

sa.oi 
70.01) 
77.20 
85.07 
87.4(1 
87.(10 
84.4:! 
84.75 

78.2:! 
81.78 
80.1(1 
81.(10 
82.10 
S2.7(i 
78.48 
80.02 
81 .0:! 

si.:i(i 

80.(10 

S().:i4 
7!t.45 

s:!.2i) 

82.21 



82.14 



liKFKRKNCES. 



Bnl. No. 5 
Hill. No. 11 
Bui. No. l.-i 
Bui. Xo. 1^ 
Bui. No. 17 
Bui. No. 17 
Bui. No. 17 



r. S. Deiit. Arit., p. 
r. S. I)ei)t. Agic. p 
r. S. Dejit. Agre., j) 
U. S. Dept. AfiTc, 1)4. :il 
r. S. Dept. Af>re., p. 
1'. .S. Dept. Ajii-c., i>, 
F. S. Dept. Ajirc., p. 
Bui. Xo. 17, r. S. Dept. A-i 
Bui. No. 17, r S. Dept. Atfi 
Beliort L. A. Beeiiel. 1887, eiieiiiii 
Keport L. A. Beeiiel, 1887, clieuii 
Bui. Xo. 21, V. S. I)ei)t. Aiiic. pi 
Bui. No. 21, r. S. Dept. Afin.. p. 
Bui. No. 22, r. S. Deiit. Afire., p 
Bui. No. 2:'., r. S. Dept. Agre., p 
Bui. Xo. 2:!, V . S. Deiit. Afire., ctjinpi 

W. .1 . Tlioinpsoii 
Hejiort L. .\. I'xcuel. elieinist. ISijs. ] 
Uejiort li. A. Beiuel, eliemist, ISJS. \ 
Keport L. A. Beeiiel, (heniist, 18! s. j 
G. L. Sjieiieei-. La. VUotter, IMa.v 1 



pHhllshrd Rri„.rts. 



4(1 



Report lluliert Kdsoii, eliemist. 1 -ISO 



lleport 11 11 
Report L. A 
Report I.. A 
Report L. A 
Report L. A 
Report [.. A 
R<-port T.. A 



■rt Kdsoii. (lieinist, 1 



Becuel, eliemist 
Beeiiel, eliemist 
Beeiiel, eliemist 
Becuel, ehi'iuist 
Becuel, eliemist. ISkll, | 
Becuel. eliemist. 18 
ReiKirt Hilliert Kdsoii. (liemist. 1 
R<'liort L. ^'oll Tresclvow. cliemisr 
:M. Bird, .liemist. Ln. Plmiln-, .M 



IS 



;sii. 



ls:;o. )i 
ls;o. 11 
is;!i, 1, 
is^ii, 1 



SI HI 
IS 
ll 



d from 

(1. 21 
(1. 21 
(1. 21 



K.xti'actioii .Vjipaiii tUf 



Slire<lder a 
Sliredder a 
Shredder a 
Slireihlera 
Diffusion 
Diftusion 
Diffusion 
1 Diffusion 
|])itfusion 
5-roll mill 
.-.-roll mill 
Diftusion 
Slireddera 
T\vo;!-roll 
.-.-ndl mill 
5.r(dl mill 
jiart oft 
5-r.dl mill 
5-ndl mill 
5-roIl mill 
Diffusion 
8-roll mill 
8-]-(dl mill 
5-roll mill 
5-ndl mill 
5-roll mill 
/.-roll mill 
5-r<dl mill 
5-r(dl mill 
S-r.dl mill 
7-rcdl mill 
7-r..ll mill 



.-ndl n 



-mil 11 



I'oll n 
. tain 



158.42 
14S.75 

Illl.dO 

170.0:! 
201.20 
188.00 
rnkiiow II 
2:10.00 
21:!. so 
l2:i.oi 
124.10 
222.00 



110 



1.5(1.4(1 
1 112.: 11 1 

214.(17 
14 4.: 12 
1(14.27 
i:!0.i:! 
21:!. 00 
is:!. 74 
1S4.1S 
145.05 
Id:!. 00 
1.54.87 
1.54.(18 
1(14.42 
145.2(1 
IS4.(12 

IIKI.SS 

1(12.40 



RKMARKf 



Boiled three sus>iirs. 
Bidled two sufiai's onlv. 
B(dled two siifiars (.nl.v. 
B(.iled three siifiars. 
Thirds estimati'd. 
Thii'ils estimated. 

Three sufia is. Actnul in- 
Tlirei' sufiars. .Ml w a.uoi 
Boih'd two siifiars oiil.v'. 
Boiled two siiuars only. 
Boiled foil r su.ua is. 
Boiled four snuars. 
Boiled three sugars. Ala 
Boiled tliree siijiars. No 



/;////,. 



■^tiuiateil. 



■elated at tiiiK 
niacerat ion . 



•t\\ eeii mills. 



B<.ilc 
ISoile 
Boile 
Boile 
Boile 
Boile 
B(.ile 
Boile 
Boile 
Boile 
Bidle 
B<.ile 
Bidle 
Thin 
Thin 
.Mace 



thl-ee siluars. IMaceiated at times In 
three sufiars. .Maeerat<'d at times he 
tliree sufiars. .'Macerated at times he 
two siifi-ars onlv. 



three HUgars. Thirds estimated at 2( 
two silfiars only. .Alacerated hetwce 
two sii.uars only. .Macerated hetwei 
portion of eroi. for third siiiiars. .^1; 
lioition of Clop for third sugars. "M 
jioi-tion of crop for tliird sugars. 
two siifiars only, 
three siifiars. 
three sugars. 

sugars estinia ted . 

sil.ua rs estiinateil. 



twei 
twe( 
twe( 

I lbs. 

II ha 
n ha 



mills 
mills 
mills 



mills, 
mills. 

ll het. mills. 



Maceration hetwei 
Doiilde maceratioi 



a( Iv mill 



ration at first mill. Two sii.uars. actual wc•iglll^ 



58 



The conclusion is not yet warranted that sorghum, as a source 
of sue-ar. can ever attain in Louisiana the excellence possible to 



Compiled From Vafio/is Pabiislicd Kcjnirtu 




Slii-i'<M('i-iiiiil."i-inll mill.! l.'iK.4-i 

Slin'fl(lci-iiiiil.">-nill mill. U.s.T.'> 

81ii-c(l(lcriiiiil.'i-r()ll mill. ICl.iid 

Slii-c(l(lcriiu(l.">-n)ll mill. IT'.Mi:! 

Diffusiiiii ■lin.-li\ 

Diffusion l.xs.dd 

DiftiiKiiiii liikiiiiwn. 

Ditt'usidii iliLdii 

Diffiisiiiu v!l:!..s(l 

■Vn.U mill Vl-AM 

.">-rnll mill 1-J4.1II 

Ditlusifiu L'2--!.iKi 

Slin'ddfiiiiiil.Vn.ll mill. HIT. '.mi 

Twd.-i-i-dll mills, tiiii.lrm l.-.(i.4ii 

.".-roll mill r.i2.:i'.i 

■Vi-oll mill. m:Hrrati..ii 

pMI-t oftillir ■l\ASu 

o-i-oll mill 1-14. :!-i 

•".-roll mill 1(;4.-J7 

."i-idll mill l:;ii.i:i 

Diffusion -IVA.W 

S-i-oU mill ls:i.74 

.s-i-oll mill 1.S4.1S 

.Vn.ll mill 14.-i.il.-, 

.-|-rcp|l mill li;:!.ii(i 

.-.-roll mill 1.-.4.S7 

,-.-nill mill 1.-|4.ii.s 

.'i-n.ll mill \rAA-l 

.-)-n.ll Miill 14.-..-J(i 

N-roll mill IM.Cd 

7-roll mill I'.ili.S.s 

7-roll mill l(i-.'.4ii 



lilOIAKKS. 



IJoilcil tlut'i' sugars. 
iJoilt'd two sugMis omIv. 
Boili'il two sujiars only. 
Boili'il thicc sugars. 
Tliinls .•stiiuatiMl. 
Tl.inls cstimatcil. 



• sugars. A'liml /. 
■ sugars. .\ll wa- 
ll two sugars ouly, 
il two sugars only, 
d four siigais. 
il four sugars. 



d flirc 
.1 tlir( 



sugars 



il tlin 
il tbr( 
d t)in 
il two 
1 tlm 
I two 
I two 



Til re 
Til re 
Boil. 
Boili- 
Hoili 
lioili 
lioili 
r,oil< 

Boili 

H.dir 

Boih' 

lioili 

Hoilc 
Boilr 
Boilc 
Boilc 

Boilr 

Boiled portion 

Boil.-(l tw 

Boih-d tlircc sugars. 

BoilcMl tliri'c sugars. 

'I'liiril sugars cstimMtnl. 

'I'liird sugars estimated, 

.Mae.i-atinu at tiist mill 



l.,hh 



sugai's. .' 
I u gars only 

sugars. Tl 

ugars only. 

ugars only. 
d iiorti.iu of crop f 
il jioition id' irop f 



iilv. 



lirds ( 
M:u 
JIai 
r tlii 
r tlii 
r till 



eil at ti 
■ration 

ed at ti 
ed at ti 
ed at ti 

stiniati 
•rated 
■rated 
■I I sMu-a 
•il suu-i 

■ll SU-II 



lietween mills 



l.etwi 
lietwt 
lietwi 



'11 mills. 
'U mills. 
<n mills. 



!'d .It 2(1 lbs. 

between bai 
betwi'cn bai 

rs. Maeera 
irs. Ilacer; 

rs . 



U mills 
k mills 
ted bet 
ted. 



■latum 

Ide mai 

sugars 



.etwei^ll bi 

ration, 
aeliial wi 



,vk mills 
iglits. 



ments in advancino; the sugar industry arc well known. 



